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

Chuck Stone

gallag wrote: »

the uvf, uda etc did not target the army, police etc

No they got intelligence from them as well as weapons and despite this they still could only manage to kill 4 Republicans for every hundred people they killed; that's little but sectarian bloodlust.

The ira still killed more civilians than any other group

Wrong. Loyalists killed more civilians.

RandomName2

SamHall wrote: »

Billy Hutchinson.
David Ervine.

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

Oh, forgot the PUP. That was the only unionist party associated with paramilitary organisations afaict. Bit of a dismal failure of a party though, with currently 0 people in Stormont, 0 in the EU parliament, 0 in Westminster and 2 (out of 582 seats) in local government.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Wrong. Loyalists killed more civilians.

Think he was talking about the "IRA" as a single organisation, compared to any other paramilitary organisation in the Troubles. In absolute numbers he's pretty much guaranteed to be correct, because the IRA killed so many people. Not particularly relevant, mind.

LordSutch

SamHall wrote: »

No. Many of the screws were Irishmen.

That blasted term "Brits" still has me confused. So when you say many of the screws were Irishmen, where would that leave Irishmen with British passports, would you call them "The Brits" or what?

God I hate that term Brits, Why? because its can mean so many things depending on the context, and maybe in this case you are refering to the London authorities? or some of the prison guards, or both? Who are the Brits you speak of SamHall? Please clarify.

Goodnight.

Chuck Stone

RandomName2 wrote: »

The unionist parties were criticised for not curbing the violence, not for having members who were actually guilty of it.

Paisley and his ilk liked nothing more than to wind fundamentalist loyalists up and then melt into the background when things kicked off. To say that Unionist politicians hands were clean is rubbish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMpV5jnZhq8

junder

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh, forgot the PUP. That was the only unionist party associated with paramilitary organisations afaict. Bit of a dismal failure of a party though, with currently 0 people in Stormont, 0 in the EU parliament, 0 in Westminster and 2 (out of 582 seats) in local government.

Still has the longest serving city councillor of any political party, Hugh smith, having first been elected to Belfast city hall in 1972 and a stint as Lord mayor. As for the pup itself, could be its about to make a come back

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

That blasted term "Brits" still has me confused. So when you say many of the screws were Irishmen, where would that leave Irishmen with British passports, would you call them "The Brits" or what?

God I hate that term Brits, Why? because its can mean so many things depending on the context, and maybe in this case you are refering to the London authorities? or some of the prison guards, or both? Who are the Brits you speak of SamHall? Please clarify.

Goodnight.

The screws didn't make the decisions in the prison.

They carried them out.

Some of the screws were Catholics from the north that held Irish passports. (I know of two at least)

I was referring to the British govt obviously.

Brit isn't used by me as a derogatory term btw, merely shortened version of British.

There was no hidden meaning in my post.

RandomName2

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Paisley and his ilk liked nothing more than to wind fundamentalist loyalists up and then melt into the background when things kicked off. To say that Unionist politicians hands were clean is rubbish.

Hmmm... this is a tricky one. Stirring up trouble as bad as the one causing the trouble? If your words lead someone to murder are you as bad as the murderer? Well, no, but you are hardly covering yourself in glory by doing so.

LordSutch

SamHall wrote: »

I was referring to the British govt obviously.

Certainly not obvious to me, but I get your drift now - thanks.

I still say "the Brits" can be a very misleading term though.

Banjo String

RandomName2 wrote: »

But not so the person whom this thread is about.

still entirely relevant to the thread though.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Partially correct only.

They refused to don the uniform of a criminal. (And rightly so) the rest was a progression from that.

Chuck Stone

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hmmm... this is a tricky one. Stirring up trouble as bad as the one causing the trouble? If your words lead someone to murder are you as bad as the murderer? Well, no, but you are hardly covering yourself in glory by doing so.

In my opinion it's worse because the stirrer does everything to not put himself at risk while inciting others to commit acts of violence.

'Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners'.

Ian Paisley

pablomakaveli

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.

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.

Again you seem to be implying that statistically the Republicans weren't as bad as the loyalists as if that somehow makes them more "good" than the loyalists.

Im saying that statistics on who killed who doesn't change the fact that both loyalists and republicans were in the wrong and that neither were "good".

Chuck Stone

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Again you seem to be implying that statistically the Republicans weren't as bad as the loyalists as if that somehow makes them more "good" than the loyalists.

They were far more discerning when it came to who they targeted.

Im saying that statistics on who killed who doesn't change the fact that both loyalists and republicans were in the wrong and that neither were "good".

As were the BA, UDR, B-Specials and RUC.

I agree, though, that are no 'good guys' in a conflict like that.

Banjo String

A news report from an American point of view.

In it we see the shameful way in which the RUC manhandled the family and the undertakers taking the corpse of vol Francis Hughes back to his family home to be waked. Knocking his elderly father to the ground, and forcibly removing the undertaker from the hearse.

The undertaker I knew personally (he's now deceased) did not have any (none obvious anyway) political beliefs.

This shameful event set the tone for the lyrics in the song 'Hughes lives on forever' it was a common saying at the time, that the British feared him in death as much as when he was alive.

They feared you then, they fear you yet for, Hughes lives on forever.

LordSutch

SamHall wrote: »

A news report from an American point of view.

In it we see the shameful way in which the RUC manhandled the family and the undertakers taking the corpse of vol Francis Hughes back to his family home to be waked. Knocking his elderly father to the ground, and forcibly removing the undertaker from the hearse.

This shameful event set the tone for the lyrics in the song 'Hughes lives on forever' it was a common saying at the time, that the British feared him in death as much as when he was alive.

They feared you then, they fear you yet for, Hughes lives on forever.

From Wiki: Francis Hughes
Francis Hughes was a volunteer in the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Hughes was the most wanted man in Northern Ireland until his arrest following a shoot-out with the Special Air Service in which an SAS soldier was killed. Hughes initially joined the Official Irish Republican Army, but left after the organisation declared a ceasefire in May 1972. Hughes then joined an Independent Republican Unit along with Dominic McGlinchey and Ian Milne, before the three decided to join the Provisional IRA in 1973. Hughes, Milne and McGlinchey took part in scores of IRA operations, including daylight attacks on Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) stations, bombings, and attacks on off-duty members of the RUC and UDR.

Best place for hom was behind bars.

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

From Wiki: Francis Hughes
Francis Hughes was a volunteer in the Provisional Irish Republican Army. Hughes was the most wanted man in Northern Ireland
until his arrest following a shoot-out with the Special Air Service in which an SAS soldier was killed. Hughes initially joined the Official Irish Republican Army, but left after the organisation declared a ceasefire in May 1972. Hughes then joined an Independent Republican Unit along with Dominic McGlinchey and Ian Milne, before the three decided to join the Provisional IRA in 1973. Hughes, Milne and McGlinchey took part in scores of IRA operations, including daylight attacks on Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) stations, bombings, and attacks on off-duty members of the RUC and UDR.

This is not news to me.

One of the most dedicated and fearless men this country ever seen. Francis Hughes wrote a military uniform in action, with a badge sewn on to his arm with the word "Eire" written on it.

There was a war raging in the north, does it surprise you to learn he was involved in active service against the British forces?

LordSutch

He was the enemy.

He was the enemy of the British forces, he was the enemy of the Irish forces, he was a terorist.

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

He was the enemy.

One man's enemy is another man's comrade.

That's how wars tend to go.

LordSutch

Of course calling "The Troubles" a war clears him of terrorism I guess!

Clever - However, to me hughes and all the other Provo's will be forever Terrorists.

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

Of course calling "The Troubles" a war clears him of terrorism I guess!

Clever - However, to me hughes and all the other Provo's will be forever Terrorists.

You're entitled to that opinion.

I don't share it, neither did the British govt when political status was given to the prisoners.

oscarBravo

keithob wrote: »

Lord sutch he was by no means a terrorist.

He was a soldier.
As was Gusty Spence a soldier.

As was Timothy McVeigh, and Mohamed Atta, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Brave soldiers all.

Educate yourself sutch before you come on talking bull.

Yes: everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. How humble of you.

Banjo String

oscarBravo wrote: »

As was Timothy McVeigh, and Mohamed Atta, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Brave soldiers all. Yes: everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. How humble of you.

Don't forget Connolly, Pearse, Collins etc.


I don't know your particular political persuasion Oscar bravo, but it's safe to say if you voted for any of the two main parties, their grassroots both spawned from 'soldiers' actions.

Even the current labour party evolved from a political wing of the official IRA.

Facts that are constantly glossed over on these threads.

oscarBravo

keithob wrote: »

You cannot compare sands to Mc Veigh etc. nor can you compare one war with another.

Of course not. How... uneducated of me.

Irish History dont lie.... Catholics where oppressed people up North and had every right to take up arms.

This is, of course, a statement of objective and unquestioned fact, and wouldn't in any way fall into the category of "opinion" at all, at all.

oscarBravo

SamHall wrote: »

Don't forget Connolly, Pearse, Collins etc.

I haven't forgotten them. They have a lot to answer for.

Banjo String

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't forgotten them. They have a lot to answer for.

If you're ashamed of the actions of the people responsible for founding the state, that's your decision.

Assuming you're Irish, have you ever considered renouncing your citizenship?

oscarBravo

SamHall wrote: »

If you're ashamed of the actions of the people responsible for founding the state, that's your decision.

That's generous of you.

Assuming you're Irish, have you ever considered renouncing your citizenship?

I don't consider the celebration of bloodshed a pre-requisite of Irishness.

Banjo String

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's generous of you.

Thank you. I try to be open minded as much as possible and look at other people's point of view, not just my own.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't consider the celebration of bloodshed a pre-requisite of Irishness.

Nor do I. Unfortunate as it is (for both sides) the state was founded on the back of an armed revolution and an uprising that resulted in blood being shed by both sides.

gallag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No they got intelligence from them as well as weapons and despite this they still could only manage to kill 4 Republicans for every hundred people they killed; that's little but sectarian bloodlust.



Wrong. Loyalists killed more civilians.

Still playing with words and twisting figures chuck, the IRA were every bit as callus and cold blooded as the loyalists you so despise, they did indeed kill more civilians than any other group, this is fact. Even if you want to put the totals together the Republicans killed roughly the same amount as the loyalists, you seem to think that loyalists were the worst because they had a sectarian blood lust, mabey one day you will realise that the IRA were equal in this regard.

you see chuck they were all the same, be it shooting a poor man randomly on the falls or bombing people getting some chips on the shankill, shooting up Catholic men enjoying a pint after work or a bus load of protestant men on their way to work.

oscarBravo

SamHall wrote: »

Nor do I. Unfortunate as it is (for both sides) the state was founded on the back of an armed revolution and an uprising that resulted in blood being shed by both sides.

If it's unfortunate that the state was founded in that manner, why do you suggest that I should consider renouncing my citizenship for refusing to celebrate the fact that the state was founded in that manner?

michael999999

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 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

No its not.

Its more prominent now than ever.

Fr Tod Umptious

michael999999 wrote: »

No its not.

Its more prominent now than ever.

explain how ?

Pedestrians and traffic no longer pass it, it's now at a cul de sac and is barely visible from either road.

michael999999

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

explain how ?

Pedestrians and traffic no longer pass it, it's now at a cul de sac and is barely visible from either road.

No it is clearly visible from the main road and the bypass. Have you even seen it?

LordSutch

keithob wrote: »

Catholics where oppressed people up North and had every right to take up arms.

The IRA had no bloody right to take up arms and do what they did.

Bus bombings, Car bombs, Knee cappings, Bank robberies, and murders of all kinds, and all in the name of the Irish people!!!

They had no right, no right whatsoever, and no mandate from the Irish people . . .

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

The IRA had no bloody right to take up arms and do what they did.

Bus bombings, Car bombs, Knee cappings, Bank robberies, and murders of all kinds, and all in the name of the Irish people!!!

They had no right, no right whatsoever, and no mandate from the Irish people . . .

What mandate did the English have when they invaded Ireland, enslaved its citizens for centuries, even deeming it 'illegal' to speak in the people's native tongue?

What mandate did they have when they outlawed Catholicism?

Not sure if trolling at this stage..........

Banjo String

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's unfortunate that the state was founded in that manner,

Unfortunate yes, of the Irish peoples own doing? No

oscarBravo wrote: »

why do you suggest that I should consider renouncing my citizenship for refusing to celebrate the fact that the state was founded in that manner?

I withdraw that comment, it was made in response to your claim that Collins, Pearse, Connolly etc 'had a lot to answer for'

It's important to remember who the grassroots leaders and founders of our political parties were however, and to remember they too were considered' rebel soldiers' by the English at some point.

bobbysands81

LordSutch wrote: »

The IRA had no bloody right to take up arms and do what they did.

Bus bombings, Car bombs, Knee cappings, Bank robberies, and murders of all kinds, and all in the name of the Irish people!!!

They had no right, no right whatsoever, and no mandate from the Irish people . . .

People always have a right to resist and fight back against foreign invaders.

bobbysands81

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's unfortunate that the state was founded in that manner, why do you suggest that I should consider renouncing my citizenship for refusing to celebrate the fact that the state was founded in that manner?

The State was founded in that manner because democracy failed it.

Fighting back against a foreign oppressive invader didn't start any war in this country. You're blaming the symptom instead of the disease.

'Britain has no right to be in Ireland, never had any right to be in Ireland and never can have any right to be in Ireland'... and therein lies the cause of conflict on this island and that's where your ire should be channelled.

oscarBravo

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The State was founded in that manner because democracy failed it.

Yes, that's the republican orthodoxy. An alternative perspective is that democracy was still in the process of working towards a peaceful outcome, and that a handful of warmongers decided to start a fight instead of waiting for that outcome.

The sad irony is that the warmongers managed to achieve what was, in effect, home rule after six years of unnecessary violence, and then promptly started another war immediately afterwards. The republic that the leaders of 1916 demanded didn't materialise until 1948, and when it did, there wasn't a shot fired.

I'll sit back now and wait to be told how naive and ignorant I am, because everyone knows for an incontrovertible fact that it was a physical impossibility for Ireland to achieve independence without bloodshed.

LordSutch

bobbysands81 wrote: »

People always have a right to resist and fight back against foreign invaders.

Foreign invaders? I guess you and I will never agree about that^

bobbysands81

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, that's the republican orthodoxy. An alternative perspective is that democracy was still in the process of working towards a peaceful outcome, and that a handful of warmongers decided to start a fight instead of waiting for that outcome.

The sad irony is that the warmongers managed to achieve what was, in effect, home rule after six years of unnecessary violence, and then promptly started another war immediately afterwards. The republic that the leaders of 1916 demanded didn't materialise until 1948, and when it did, there wasn't a shot fired.

I'll sit back now and wait to be told how naive and ignorant I am, because everyone knows for an incontrovertible fact that it was a physical impossibility for Ireland to achieve independence without bloodshed.

The 'warmongers' were the people that invaded this country and oppressed, starved and murdered it's inhabitants, not the people who had the awful cheek to dare fight back against them.

Once again you're blaming the symptom and not the disease.

bobbysands81

LordSutch wrote: »

Foreign invaders? I guess you and I will never agree about that^

2 questions:

1. Were the invaders from Ireland?

2. Did the invaders invade?

bobbysands81

We seem to have this amazing concept in Ireland where we completely absolve the Brits for their part in our troubled history, after all if they hadn't invaded and oppressed the Irish people in the most violent of ways then there would have been no resistance and fight back from Republicans.

We were never the aggressors, our violence was always reactionary, we never asked for it to happen but to many within this State we're the sole ones responsible for the horrors that have taken place.

It's like a post colonial post traumatic stress disorder.

oscarBravo

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The 'warmongers' were the people that invaded this country and oppressed, starved and murdered it's inhabitants, not the people who had the awful cheek to dare fight back against them.

Once again you're blaming the symptom and not the disease.

On the contrary, I'm blaming those who attempted to treat the "disease" by inflicting two bloody wars and a legacy of violent nationalism on the country.

bobbysands81

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll sit back now and wait to be told how naive and ignorant I am, because everyone knows for an incontrovertible fact that it was a physical impossibility for Ireland to achieve independence without bloodshed.

The only fact that we know, and you've even admitted it in your post, was that by the time that Republicans reacted with violence to violence democratic ways hadn't worked.

bobbysands81

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the contrary, I'm blaming those who attempted to treat the "disease" by inflicting two bloody wars and a legacy of violent nationalism on the country.

Going by your logic then it's our fault that Britain invaded us!

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the contrary, I'm blaming those who attempted to treat the "disease" by inflicting two bloody wars and a legacy of violent nationalism on the country.

...yet I feel its not the British state you're talking about.

dulpit

Out of curiosity, why do Republicans view Bobby Sands in particular as a hero? I won't claim to know a whole lot about him (I was -4 when he died), but as far as I can tell he was imprisoned, went on hunger strike, got elected as MP and died. He didn't (did he?) take part in any huge IRA actions, and it was only after more died that the British gave political prisoner status to the IRA men.

So why the big fuss about Sands specifically? I couldn't name 1 other hunger striker, but have always been aware of the name Bobby Sands...

Nodin

dulpit wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why do Republicans view Bobby Sands in particular as a hero? I won't claim to know a whole lot about him (I was -4 when he died), but as far as I can tell he was imprisoned, went on hunger strike, got elected as MP and died. He didn't (did he?) take part in any huge IRA actions, and it was only after more died that the British gave political prisoner status to the IRA men.

So why the big fuss about Sands specifically? I couldn't name 1 other hunger striker, but have always been aware of the name Bobby Sands...

All the Hunger strikers were viewed as heroes, but Sands became the figurehead of the strike.

oscarBravo

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The only fact that we know, and you've even admitted it in your post, was that by the time that Republicans reacted with violence to violence democratic ways hadn't worked.

That's precisely the justification that dissident republicans today will use for their actions: democracy hasn't worked, in that Ireland is still partitioned. Therefore they are justified in taking up arms.

Nodin wrote: »

...yet I feel its not the British state you're talking about.

Correct.

dulpit

Nodin wrote: »

All the Hunger strikers were viewed as heroes, but Sands became the figurehead of the strike.

Were they heroes for Nationlists as a whole or just those that supported the armed conflict of the IRA? (again, I am genuinely curious, and am not looking to troll/etc).

From my (extremely distant) point of view, I can't see how I could support Sands and the hunger strikers unless I was already supporting the armed conflict.

RandomName2

bobbysands81 wrote: »

The only fact that we know, and you've even admitted it in your post, was that by the time that Republicans reacted with violence to violence democratic ways hadn't worked.

Democratic ways had worked! We had got exactly what we had been campaigning for for decades - the only sticking point was Unionist intransigence and Westminster was predominantly on the side of Irish Nationalists in that regard... until revolutionaries threw the democratic process out the window.



Some, like Pearse, thought that death and suffering was a morally superior option to political resolution. Some felt that a better deal could be achieved through a quick revolution. Others, like Connolly were desperately concerned that the civil liberties and rights of workers were being abandoned, and that the workers should wrest control of the revolutionary process by force. Some wanted merely to damage Britain's war effort; a sort-of revenge for something or other.

It was a mess of ambitions and psychologies of its leaders; and no wonder that the organisation of the rising itself was an unholy mess with orders and counterorders and confusion confounding its already unlikely chances.

To a large extent many people (ridiculous as it sounds) felt that war was... in vogue. There was a militaristic atmosphere both at home and abroad. Countess Markievicz found nothing insane about digging trenches in the middle of St. Stephen's Green to be manned by men with rifles because something similar was happening in France.

It was a sad conclusion to the peaceful generation of an Irish national politic and cultural national movement. The former was destroyed and the latter subsumed by ultra-right wing nationalists who helped found a country dominated by the Catholic Church, that was xenophobic and isolationist, where the only language considered of value was Irish, and aspects of British culture viewed with fear and hatred. It was a long time before football and rugby were considered anything other than the cultural imposition of a colonialist invader.

After Irishman killed Irishman, when fatigue of civil strife and rural outrages made them abandon such endeavours, the same dry politics that had once been scored, achieved everything that had been demanded. Everything bar the North, which was largely denied because, while Nationalists abandoned the political sphere that was about to serve them, Unionists had adopted the political sphere that was about to abandon them. The only people who accepted Home Rule when it was offered to Ireland were those who had fought so ardently against it.