Will there ever be a Bobby Sands Street in the country?

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote:

Well you better rethink the name of your urinal for my last post was the profile of the recently deceased, and much repected on all sides, DUP Politician David Ervine who died yesterday may he Rest In Peace.

You Sir, would want to spend some more time learning a little bit about about this country.

Forget about our History & Heritage it's way beyond you.
Start off small, try this week's newspapers.
Come back when you know more than Imperialist bigotry.

That is all.

very clever. You set me up and I fell for it.

I take it you will starting the David Ervine (RIP) Street campaign then?

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

hateful abuse?

Yes that's what your crass, puerile comments amounted to.
Is there any need for that kind of invective?

If you disagree with his politics, with his actions fair enough but to come out with what appears to be simplistic, ignorant bigotry is really not needed.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I get this a lot. Because I am English and I do not blindly believe that everything British is wrong and everything carried out by the PIRA etc is in the name of freedom and therefore acceptable, I am considered right wing, a bigot etc. (I'm probably more left wing to be honest)

*adopts Ali G voice* its coz i iz black, innit? :rolleyes:
Come on grow up.

No one knows your background or your politics, all there is to go on is your comments.

Comments that would not look out of place coming from a foaming at the mouth Unionist, in fact that is a bit of an insult to most Unionists who appear to be trying to move on from such puerile positions.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I love this country, it’s a great place to live

So too would Bobby Sands, yet he was never extended such a privilege.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I work alongside some great people who are dedicated to bringing to Ireland the best services they can and make this country a real economic force. Then I drive down the N11 through Glen of the Downs and I see a big sign saying “Free the Columbian three” or “Remember Bobby Sands” or, the current one I think is “Stop Harassment of Republicans”. When I see that, I can’t help feeling that despite a lot of people trying drag this country into the 21st century, there are still a vast amount of people in this country living in a time past.

So let me get this straight, because you have to suffer the violation of your sensibilities that seeing a few banners amounts to, that gives you the justification to come out with your unwarranted hate filled spiel?

If such frivolous violations were all Bobby Sands had to suffer, do you think he would have been in the position he ended up in?

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Yes that's what your crass, puerile comments amounted to.
Is there any need for that kind of invective?

If you disagree with his politics, with his actions fair enough but to come out with what appears to be simplistic, ignorant bigotry is really not needed.

*adopts Ali G voice* its coz i iz black, innit? :rolleyes:
Come on grow up.

No one knows your background or your politics, all there is to go on is your comments.

Comments that would not look out of place coming from a foaming at the mouth Unionist, in fact that is a bit of an insult to most Unionists who appear to be trying to move on from such puerile positions.



So too would Bobby Sands, yet he was never extended such a privilege.



So let me get this straight, because you have to suffer the violation of your sensibilities that seeing a few banners amounts to, that gives you the justification to come out with your unwarranted hate filled spiel?

If such frivolous violations were all Bobby Sands had to suffer, do you think he would have been in the position he ended up in?

I made an over the top post about a very controversial figure (and received a bollocking from a mod btw) and suddenly it's getting personal.

I'm not talking about a stupid banner, that does not bother me. It's the message that banners like that give out about this country.

it's the past, it's gone, it's done.

now, point out some of my other "Imperialistic Bigotted posts" please.

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

I made an over the top post about a very controversial figure (and received a bollocking from a mod btw) and suddenly it's getting personal.

I'm not talking about a stupid banner, that does not bother me. It's the message that banners like that give out about this country.

it's the past, it's gone, it's done.

now, point out some of my other "Imperialistic Bigotted posts" please.

Before I started that reply, the last post I had seen was #31.
I'm not trying to make it personal, as I said all I can go on is your comments.

Yes I know it wasn't about the banners pre se but rather your intrepretation of them, which is probably something I wouldn't agree with anyway but that's a different story.

I didn't make the "Imperialistic Bigot" comment and I am in no way saying you are such a thing. My only truck was with your comments and that's what I directed my post at.

Aedh Baclamh

Haha, Hagar's post is just wonderful.

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote:

I made an over the top post about a very controversial figure (and received a bollocking from a mod btw) and suddenly it's getting personal.

I suspect that the reason for the bollicking was me reporting you post. Yet you come back and repeat what you said again. Why did you do that? Have you no respect for the mod concerned or your fellow posters? I suppose someone could take a show of discourtesy such as that as personal.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I'm not talking about a stupid banner, that does not bother me. It's the message that banners like that give out about this country.

A mural isn't a banner. It's a painting in this case which covers the whole gable end of a house. Given the amount of graffitti on walls in such areas the fact that it not defaced is indicative of the respect the local people have for the man and his sacrifice. The support is a good message. Would you have the Unionists paint over their murals of King William? Or is it just Nationalist murals that you don't like?

Fratton Fred wrote:

it's the past, it's gone, it's done.

How can you reconcile your claim that your are intested in the History & Heritage of Ireland and make a statement that dismisses all history & heritage as being past and gone. I don't believe you have any such interest at all. I think you are here for a bit of shít stirring and Paddy-bashing.

Fratton Fred wrote:

now, point out some of my other "Imperialistic Bigotted posts" please.

The search function is limited so I'll just ask you to re-read this thread from an Irishman's viewpoint, no necessarily a rabid Republican, just an Irishman.*

Fred, you were 12 years old when Bobby Sands died. Where did you get you knowledge of the man and the events of the time? British newspapers? With the comprehension of a 12 yr old? For the record I was 25 and working in Belfast at the time so I can claim to have an adult recollection of events.

You are only in the country since last September and you come on here beating your drum in both the Politics and the History & Heritage forums. I'd advise you to ask more questions and read more before you make a fool of yourself, again.

Nothing personal. I don't even know you.

* Naturally this includes Mná na hÉireann

InFront

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Whatever side of the political divide your on, a man who selflessly gave his life for a cause he believed in deserves to be respected.

Oh really? Mohammad Sadique Khan? Shehzad Tanwe'er?
I don't have any respect for them. I wouldn't have respect for him if they blew themselves up in a train with 100 people or one with nobody in it, they were a terrorist.

Bobby Sands was a terrorist. He was a Provo. I for one have absolutely no respect for him as a human being.

Hagar
Fred, you were 12 years old when Bobby Sands died. Where did you get you knowledge of the man and the events of the time? British newspapers? With the comprehension of a 12 yr old? For the record I was 25 and working in Belfast at the time so I can claim to have an adult recollection of events.

Those of us who were not born when Bobby Sands died can and often do have a very deep understanding of the political era.
I for one place far more weight in a library full of books on certain elements of my own heritage and history, than any relatives who have knowledge of it like your firsthand knowledge of the Ulster troubles. Your opinion is too subjective on its own.
And I consider it highly arrogant to offer the appropriately veiled suggestion that you know more because you were an adult there. Often the adults who "were there" in the political events that shaped our collective history as a civilisation were the really clueless ones.

InFront

Hagar wrote:

You are only in the country since last September and you come on here beating your drum in both the Politics and the History & Heritage forums.

Same goes for this. Residency is not a pre-requisite to having knowledge of history or political matters. You can be sure that people posting in threads about Iraqi politics know more about it than many Iraqis do. Being "Irish" does not mean you know your own history.

Owen

To be honest, I hope it never happens. I had the misfortune of gigging in the same venue as The Wolfetones, and got to view their act during my half time break. They were playing some moany trad song, when suddenly the lyric mentioned Bobby Sands, and all the degenerate Celtic wearing scumbags stood up, slurred out the words 'Bobby Sands' inbetween spilling pints and screaming 'f*ck the brits' ... and unfortunately, strong as Bobby's sacrifice was, this is the exact type of crap that keeps the anti-british sentiments alive, and these are (For the majority) the type of people it appeals to.

Hagar

InFront wrote:

Those of us who were not born when Bobby Sands died can and often do have a very deep understanding of the political era.
I for one place far more weight in a library full of books on certain elements of my own heritage and history, than any relatives who have knowledge of it like your firsthand knowledge of the Ulster troubles. Your opinion is too subjective on its own.
And I consider it highly arrogant to offer the appropriately veiled suggestion that you know more because you were an adult there. Often the adults who "were there" in the political events that shaped our collective history as a civilisation were the really clueless ones.

There is no arrogance involved. I was there, I saw things that were reported as minor incidents on the BBC News the next morning when in fact they were very serious indeed if you were near them. The British people heard what their Government wanted them to as did the Irish people. The history books you're talking about are the official line. They are fine as far as they go but never forget that the winner writes the history books. They will contain a version of the events, just one version mind, not necessarily the whole truth. I didn't shape any history I was just lucky enough to live through a small part of it and come out the other side. That does not give any more importance to what I saw but it doesn't diminish it either.

Have a good look at today's newspaper. Is it 100% accurate do you think? Does it tell the whole story? Well that's tomorrow's history book right in front of you.

Hagar

InFront wrote:

Same goes for this. Residency is not a pre-requisite to having knowledge of history or political matters.

I'm questioning wherether the poster had any knowledge or interest in Irish History or Heritage before last September. In fact I'm questioning his current knowledge sice he didn't even know today that Bobby Sands was locked up for possession of firearms not driving a car bomb.

InFront wrote:

You can be sure that people posting in threads about Iraqi politics know more about it than many Iraqis do.

How could you possibly know that. Seriously.

InFront wrote:

Being "Irish" does not mean you know your own history.

Nor does it mean I don't.

csk

ned78 wrote:

To be honest, I hope it never happens. I had the misfortune of gigging in the same venue as The Wolfetones, and got to view their act during my half time break. They were playing some moany trad song, when suddenly the lyric mentioned Bobby Sands, and all the degenerate Celtic wearing scumbags stood up, slurred out the words 'Bobby Sands' inbetween spilling pints and screaming 'f*ck the brits' ... and unfortunately, strong as Bobby's sacrifice was, this is the exact type of crap that keeps the anti-british sentiments alive, and these are (For the majority) the type of people it appeals to.

That's a very gross generalisation (some might say stupid stereotyping).

Most people involved in the Republican Movement that I have met are about as far away from this stereotype as you could get. In fact most would condemn those "degenerate Celtic wearing scumbags" in much the same way as you, if maybe not the same terms.

I really doubt that some p!ssed louts singing along to the WolfeTones is what keeps the "anti-British sentiment" alive.

I think partition and the treatment of the nationalist community in the north are far more pertinent reasons it stays alive than some silly "rebel" band.

vesp

Erin Go Brath wrote:

You are showing yourself to be a true bigot Fratton Fred! .

No he is not. In all fairness, Fratton Fred comes across as much less of a bigot than many a republican on this website. Fratton Fred just gave his opinion on what he thought of a convicted terrorist....who was a member of a terrorist organisation who have killed people on both sides of the border and elsewhere.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Whatever side of the political divide your on, a man who selflessly gave his life for a cause he believed in deserves to be respected. .

Why respect someone who "gave his life for a cause" ? What good did giving his life do ? It done more damage than good and cost many other lives.
If you think everyone who "gave his life for a cause" should be respected, why do you not respect the 9/11 bombers for example ?

Erin Go Brath wrote:

People are too quick to judge these guys as terrorists. .

If you think the PIRA were not terrorists then you agree with the murder s of Garda McCabe and other people killed in the 26 counties by the PIRA ? You agree with Enniskillen , Le Mon, Bloody Friday, Guildford bombings etc etc ? You do not think the "guys" who done those atrocities are terrorists ?

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The reality is that internment without trial was one of Britains policies in NI at the time. .

WRONG. Just like many a statement made by republicans on this board, that is factually wrong. Internment was not practiced in the early eighties.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Just one in a long history of policies designed to f**k us Irish over.

lol. Many an Irish person would disagree with you....and not just non-catholics. Do not forget 25% of the Roman Catholic population of N. Ireland wish to remain part of the UK.


Before people start calling me a bigot and the moderator bans me , let me pointy out I condemn the terrorism committed by loyalists just as much as the terrorism committed by republicans.

Hagar

vesp wrote:

WRONG. Just like many a statement made by republicans on this board, that is factually wrong. Internment was not practiced in the early eighties.

Friday 5 December 1975
End of Internment
The last 46 people who had been interned without trial were released. The end of Internment was announced by Merlyn Rees, then Secretary of Sate for Northern Ireland, who said that those found guilty of crimes would be brought before the courts. [During the period of Internment, 9 August 1971 to 5 December 1975, 1,981 people were detained; 1,874 were Catholic / Republican, while 107 were Protestant / Loyalist.]

Your are correct. However the fact that this poster is open to correction on this particular post does not automatically make every other statement made by other persons with similar views incorrect. Does it?

Indeed internment did not not continue into the 80's. Interesting to note the breakdown on the internment figures don't you think? Were the "Nationalists" really 18 times more "criminal" than the "Unionists"?

vesp wrote:

lol. Many an Irish person would disagree with you....and not just non-catholics. Do not forget 25% of the Roman Catholic population of N. Ireland wish to remain part of the UK.

I'm sure you can back this assertion up? I would also be interested to know how many non-Roman Catholics would not like to be part of the UK. Or are you making assumptions along sectarian lines?

vesp wrote:

Before people start calling me a bigot and the moderator bans me , let me pointy out I condemn the terrorism committed by loyalists just as much as the terrorism committed by republicans.

Nice sidestep, have you any medals for Irish dancing?:D

InFront

Hagar wrote:

The British people heard what their Government wanted them to as did the Irish people.

Do you want to give us any examples? Because if it appeared as a minor section on the news, whilst it may have appeared important to you, it may actually have been overall quite a minor event. You need to accept that you have a bias.

The history books you're talking about are the official line. They are fine as far as they go but never forget that the winner writes the history books.

No they don't. Historians write the history books.

In terms of Bobby Sands, the British government, its institutions were the winner. But so was democracy. Personally I don't see Sands as a loser only in light of losing his fight with the British Government, but in light of his failings as a human being who was a member of the Provisional IRA and killed himself for terrorism. If he had won and was alive today, I would still have no respect for him.

Have a good look at today's newspaper. Is it 100% accurate do you think? Does it tell the whole story? Well that's tomorrow's history book right in front of you.

No, it's not. It is tomorrow's most immediate raw history, but you seem to be completely unaware of how history changes and what adds to it. Public opinion, years of debate, precedents and historical ramifications, social change: these all inform historians how to write history. It's not a case of the Queen of England standing over Geraldine Kennedy with a revolver.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote:

I suspect that the reason for the bollicking was me reporting you post. Yet you come back and repeat what you said again. Why did you do that? Have you no respect for the mod concerned or your fellow posters? I suppose someone could take a show of discourtesy such as that as personal.

if you were not in such a rush to capitalise on your deliberately misleading post, then you would have read my reply properly.

I said "in my opinion, I think it is as right to name a urinal after him, as I do a street."

Clearly I do not think it right to name a street after him, therefore I do not think it right to name a urinal. That applies to Mr Sands as well as Mr Ervine.

That is why I described it as a climb down.

Hagar wrote:

A mural isn't a banner. It's a painting in this case which covers the whole gable end of a house. Given the amount of graffitti on walls in such areas the fact that it not defaced is indicative of the respect the local people have for the man and his sacrifice. The support is a good message. Would you have the Unionists paint over their murals of King William? Or is it just Nationalist murals that you don't like?

you really aren't reading what I write are you?

Hagar wrote:

How can you reconcile your claim that your are intested in the History & Heritage of Ireland and make a statement that dismisses all history & heritage as being past and gone. I don't believe you have any such interest at all. I think you are here for a bit of shít stirring and Paddy-bashing.

you really aren't reading what I write are you? Why would I be in for a bit of Paddy bashing? don't judge me by your own **** the Brits standards. Thankfully my Irish partner, and my numerous Irish friends and relatives do not have the same opinion.

Hagar wrote:

The search function is limited so I'll just ask you to re-read this thread from an Irishman's viewpoint, no necessarily a rabid Republican, just an Irishman.*

oh, I thought you were an expert on all my posts, which is why you are qualified to make such defamatory and patronising comments about me.

Hagar wrote:

Fred, you were 12 years old when Bobby Sands died. Where did you get you knowledge of the man and the events of the time? British newspapers? With the comprehension of a 12 yr old? For the record I was 25 and working in Belfast at the time so I can claim to have an adult recollection of events.

I was only 12, but I remember it well because my best friends father was serving in Ireland at the time with the Royal Hampshires, but I accept that his opinion would have been bias.

However my colleague of several years who grew up in West Belfast gave me her opinion, oh and she is catholic by the way.

Hagar wrote:

You are only in the country since last September and you come on here beating your drum in both the Politics and the History & Heritage forums. I'd advise you to ask more questions and read more before you make a fool of yourself, again.

Nothing personal. I don't even know you.

you are unable to quote any posts but you are able to make statements like that? is that acceptable?

I do think it is personal, oh and I respect my fellow posters, I suggest you do the same.

Hagar

InFront wrote:

Do you want to give us any examples? Because if it appeared as a minor section on the news, whilst it may have appeared important to you, it may actually have been overall quite a minor event.

I have seen full on engagement with British Troops. A strategically planned ambush involving as 2 units attacking a post just two doors from where I stayed and a third laying ambush with a 50 caliber to a helicopter which came in to re-inforce the post. The helicopter f'ed off and left the post to it's fate. It took a hammering before the units pulled out about 15 mins later. It was reported next day as " a British Army post came under fire in the Windsor Avenue area but there were no casualties". The ambulances came and went for over an hour. I freely admit to being scared witless at first, But when I realised what was happening I was able to watch witha strange clinical detachment. Funny how things like that are in real life.

I could tell you another really good story but that is all you get for now.

InFront wrote:

You need to accept that you have a bias.

Why do you think I'm biased? Is it because I don't agree with you? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you biased?

InFront wrote:

No they don't. Historians write the history books.

Naieve.

InFront wrote:

In terms of Bobby Sands, the British government, its institutions were the winner. But so was democracy. Personally I don't see Sands as a loser only in light of losing his fight with the British Government, but in light of his failings as a human being who was a member of the Provisional IRA and killed himself for terrorism. If he had won and was alive today, I would still have no respect for him.

He was a democratically elected Member of the British Parliment so I suppose democracy won in that he was chosen by the people to represent their viewpoints.

InFront wrote:

No, it's not. It is tomorrow's most immediate raw history, but you seem to be completely unaware of how history changes and what adds to it. Public opinion, years of debate, precedents and historical ramifications, social change: these all inform historians how to write history. It's not a case of the Queen of England standing over Geraldine Kennedy with a revolver.

History is what happened, actually happened, not what spin is later put on it, nobody needs to be informed how to write it. Just write down what happened.

/edited to add missing quote tags.

walrusgumble

Those of us who were not born when Bobby Sands died can and often do have a very deep understanding of the political era.
I for one place far more weight in a library full of books on certain elements of my own heritage and history, than any relatives who have knowledge of it like your firsthand knowledge of the Ulster troubles. Your opinion is too subjective on its own.
And I consider it highly arrogant to offer the appropriately veiled suggestion that you know more because you were an adult there. Often the adults who "were there" in the political events that shaped our collective history as a civilisation were the really clueless ones.[/QUOTE]

ah sod this, dont care if i get banned. i have read several several threads of yours and have opinion that you have just come out of uni or college(so have i ) but HOW THE HELL YOU COME UP WITH CRAP LIKE THAT.

the man you are referring to lived in belfast, workded in belfast and prob soicalised in belfast. he would have a fairly good idea what went on, witnessed beatings, may have become numb to sectarian rants or heared about them from both sides, may have know someone in jail whether or not they were guilty . ok he might have put it in a nicer way, but you tend to let everyone know bout your opinion too and imply ur books are the be all end all. people who lived in the north dont have to be acedmics or fancy writers to have had a decent understanding of what was going on then. look at the politics thread, events of today, i am sure one may find some comments mental and subjective, prob no differece back then either. it has often been commented on and in my experience, people from the nationalist from the six counties and boundary co in the rep, sometimes have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to us (not all and its not a hostile one) when we down here who may have not experienced what happened up there come out with stuff they really shouldnt have said due to their ill informed knowledge or attitude. i wonder a majority of us in the south know what went on in the streets, alleys and fields of belfast and co during the 90's up there., bar the news, because it often resembled a no go area. how many have ever bothered to go up there (i am referring to people who haven't, i am sure some people here have).

in front, if someone gave you the choice of 1000 of books on say a museum/a festival or the choice to go there, which would you take in order to educate yourself?

again maybe put in a better way, he referred to adult understanding, as in he was one, and an adult understanding of what went on those days would maybe more understanding or accurate or bleak/ok than say a child (eg 8 yr old) may for example think things are like its like cow boy and indians. did anyone really know and understand and become cyncial of the big bad world at 8 - 12 years? children may have been too innocent to understand why things happen. do many parents go to their 12 year for a shoulder to cry on when they have marriage, debt probs or work related stress or tell them who they pulled last nite?

some of these authors and some mind, i prob gone through some of them too, were witnesses and people in army/police giving their account. (you know yourself alot of different stories, and you get to see the bigger picture which i would agree with u, and one needs to see both sides of the fence to understand the situation)

but, surely you are intelligent enough to realise sometimes historians book can have a wee bit of subjective views too. how many times have you been frustrated by going through one or two books on a part of history and then turn to another just to tell you "ah sorry there reader but what you learned previously is not completley true, in the opinion of the author, and here is the evidence and my 2 cents on the matter" try not to be too naive,

vesp

Hagar wrote:

I have seen full on engagement with British Troops. A strategically planned ambush involving as 2 units attacking a post just two doors from where I stayed and a third laying ambush with a 50 caliber to a helicopter which came in to re-inforce the post. The helicopter f'ed off and left the post to it's fate. It took a hammering before the units pulled out about 15 mins later. It was reported next day as " a British Army post came under fire in the Windsor Avenue area but there were no casualties". The ambulances came and went for over an hour. I freely admit to being scared witless at first, But when I realised what was happening I was able to watch witha strange clinical detachment. Funny how things like that are in real life.

lol. great story. Sure it was not 45 or 50 minutes instead of 15 ? :rolleyes: Windsor avenue is such an isolated spot of bandit country ( lol ) I am not surprised "The helicopter f'ed off and left the post to it's fate.":rolleyes: Yet there were no casulties. The PIRA seem to have been more successful at inflicting casulties when dressing up in civilian clothes and putting bombs in civilian areas eg Le Mons Restaurant, Enniskillen, Warrington, Birmingham, Belfast city centre etc etc.....or when ganging up and shooting some part time or retired protestant in the back on a lonely border farm. Or when shooting a pregnant policewoman and bragging about getting two for the price of one.

Hagar wrote:

I could tell you another really good story but that is all you get for now.

ah g'wan, g'wan, g'wan. ye will, ye will, ye will.

boneless

If you had read the post properly you would have seen that there were no reports of casualties, not that there were no casualties. Don't forget that the media were not always informed in the Northern conflict and where also, in some cases, heavily biased to the establishment.

How many Paras were killed at Warrenpoint? 18 fatalities were admitted but a friend of mine who was in Daisy Hill hospital at the time overheard a nurse saying that 32 had lost thier lives in the atrocity.

The first casualty of a war is the truth.

Hagar

@Vesp You asked for information then when you get it you just choose not to believe what is presented. You just issue a few derogatory "LOLs" and basically call me a liar. Well there's not much anyone can do in the face of that. I told the truth, I'm sorry it doesn't suit your purposes but that does not make me a liar.

As for the "g'wan g'wan" despite the fact it is an obvious goad it would be pointless to waste my time if you are just going to dismiss whatever I type as a lie.

InFront

walrusgumble wrote:

Those of us who were not born when Bobby Sands died can and often do have a very deep understanding of the political era.
I for one place far more weight in a library full of books on certain elements of my own heritage and history, than any relatives who have knowledge of it like your firsthand knowledge of the Ulster troubles. Your opinion is too subjective on its own.
And I consider it highly arrogant to offer the appropriately veiled suggestion that you know more because you were an adult there. Often the adults who "were there" in the political events that shaped our collective history as a civilisation were the really clueless ones.

ah sod this, dont care if i get banned. i have read several several threads of yours and have opinion that you have just come out of uni or college(so have i ) but HOW THE HELL YOU COME UP WITH CRAP LIKE THAT.

I haven't just come out of university, i'm still in it. And I fail to see the relevance. Does being a student make me less able to form an opinion based on what I have learned? How exactly is my opinion lesser than your on that basis alone if you have just come from college??
Which part of my post is "crap"? The bit about the people living through an experience being biased? Of course they are biased. In history, as well as other disciplines, you need to base your opinion on more than one simple point of view, such as the one Hagar has put forward. His opinion of the Ulster troubles is simply his own, another person could have a compltely different set of experiences (or similiar) of IRA atrocities firsthand. There is always more than one valid opinion of history, and it is essential that one forms opinions from as wide a berth of sources as is reasonable to expect.

the man you are referring to lived in belfast, workded in belfast and prob soicalised in belfast. he would have a fairly good idea what went on, witnessed beatings, may have become numb to sectarian rants or heared about them from both sides, may have know someone in jail whether or not they were guilty . ok he might have put it in a nicer way

The guys in 7-7 probably experienced racial abuse, anti-Islam abuse, may have become numb to sectarian rants within their own community and outside, grew up with it, were they, Siddique Khan and his fellows, entitled to join a terrorist network and hijack British people of all nationalities and faiths? No. Were Bobby Sands and Co? No.
The reason is this: lots of people went through what sands experienced and didn't succomb or give in to it. I have just finished reading Nell McCafferty's excellent autobiography which gives a very disturbing account of Nationalsits living on the bogside and Creggan, and what they endured. But her brothers didn't end up in jail as a provo. Lots of people get bad deals in life: get over it.

, but you tend to let everyone know bout your opinion too and imply ur books are the be all end all.

Do I? This is an internet forum, there are about 5 fora I read regularly, if you are aware of any limitations in a poster's reading and/ or engaging with particular debates let me know. Or maybe let the admins know a poster is debating too much? Whatever you want yourself.

people who lived in the north dont have to be acedmics or fancy writers to have had a decent understanding of what was going on then.

A personal account no. But to have a detailed account of the Ulster situation: yes, you need to read about it quite a bit. I live in Dundrum, I don't know the history of the area, nor the politics of the area, unless I actively engage with it. I'm sure teachers have told you already that one does not learn by osmosis.

in front, if someone gave you the choice of 1000 of books on say a museum/a festival or the choice to go there, which would you take in order to educate yourself?

First lets assume the festival is of significance.
I would go to the festival, and I would also find out what others thought of it. If there were books published on it, I would purchase them. Your own personal experience is so small and so biased that it is impossible that it will correspond completely to the larger opinion.
I would repeat again that a number of considered works of history, even if they are conflicting, that take into account an indepth viewpoint, are far more valid as historical receipts than a 7 day conversation with an ex-provo ot ex-loyalist terrorist, or nationalist housewife alone.

but, surely you are intelligent enough to realise sometimes historians book can have a wee bit of subjective views too.

All opinion is subjective, that is why you need to base it on more than one perspective: by reading books. I certainly don't take what one person, say for example, hagar says, as fact. You have to consider the wider political landscape, its derivation and its method, to understand a situation.

InFront

Hagar wrote:

I have seen full on engagement with British Troops. A strategically planned ambush involving as 2 units attacking a post just two doors from where I stayed and a third laying ambush with a 50 caliber to a helicopter which came in to re-inforce the post. The helicopter f'ed off and left the post to it's fate. It took a hammering before the units pulled out about 15 mins later. It was reported next day as " a British Army post came under fire in the Windsor Avenue area but there were no casualties". The ambulances came and went for over an hour. I freely admit to being scared witless at first, But when I realised what was happening I was able to watch witha strange clinical detachment. Funny how things like that are in real life.

I have just read Kevin Myers book "Watching the Door" which covers a variety of atrocities during his time in the North. Whilst I dont doubt there were some cover-ups, given what Ive read of other atrocities, this does sound like something which wasn't a major incident, dramatic as it may seem if you're there, I'm sure.

Why do you think I'm biased? Is it because I don't agree with you? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you biased?

No, you lived in Belfast. One Belfast opinion alone doesn't count for much. This is what i mean by getting a wide base of primary sources, ah come on, this is what people do in first year of secondary school... this is history and heritage, not AH.

Originally Posted by InFront
No they don't. Historians write the history books.

Naieve.

How long did it take you to come up with that? Tell me how the historian doesn't write history? Do you think the British have written the history of world war one? Why aren't we all dancing for joy on armstice day so? Why do we, as humans, mourn German soldiers killed in that war? Why are we aware of their suffering too?

He was a democratically elected Member of the British Parliment so I suppose democracy won in that he was chosen by the people to represent their viewpoints.

Yes, democracy won all around. It also won in the sense that a terorist failed to insult and damage the administrative machinery of Northern ireland. Would that its history had been so consistent since.

Hagar

InFront wrote:

I have just read Kevin Myers book "Watching the Door" which covers a variety of atrocities during his time in the North. Whilst I dont doubt there were some cover-ups, given what Ive read of other atrocities, this does sound like something which wasn't a major incident, dramatic as it may seem if you're there, I'm sure.

InFront wrote:

How long did it take you to come up with that? Tell me how the historian doesn't write history?

It wasn't Custer's last Stand or anything so significant but because of the way it was officially reported and recorded for posterity it practically didn't happen. That is the point I'm making, control the media and you control the truth. Control how history is written on a small scale and you do control it on a large scale.

InFront wrote:

One Belfast opinion alone doesn't count for much. This is what i mean by getting a wide base of primary sources, ah come on, this is what people do in first year of secondary school... this is history and heritage, not AH.

You're right, one opinion doesn't count for much at all. But if you discount opinions one at a time because they are indidvidually insignificant what are you left with? Next thing it will be don't value individual minority votes because they are not in line with the majority. But in Northern Ireland that has already happened.

InFront wrote:

Do you think the British have written the history of world war one?

Most definitely. The winner always does. If Hitler had won WWII I'm sure the history books of the period would read quite differently.

InFront wrote:

Why aren't we all dancing for joy on armstice day so? Why do we, as humans, mourn German soldiers killed in that war? Why are we aware of their suffering too?

On the original Armistace Day people did dance for joy because they have crushed their enemies. Nowadays they remember what it cost to do that so the mood is subdued. I'm sure a proportion of those who observe Armistice Day couldn't care less how many Germans died as long as they were beaten.

InFront wrote:

Yes, democracy won all around. It also won in the sense that a terorist failed to insult and damage the administrative machinery of Northern ireland. Would that its history had been so consistent since.

Well Democracy didn't come out of it too well really. As soon as Bobby Sands was elected MP by a democratic majority the British Parliment rushed through a law which forbade anyone serving a prison sentence of more than 1yr from taking up a seat in Parliment. So much for democracy. Basically the Nationalists could vote for anyone they liked but were never going to get anywhere using democratic means. Is it any wonder that this policy, not a new one by the way, drove people to use other means?

To get back to the original topic, I don't think a street will ever be named after him because in many people's minds it would glorify the conflict not the goal of the conflict.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote:

To get back to the original topic, I don't think a street will ever be named after him because in many people's minds it would glorify the conflict not the goal of the conflict.

that is probably the best statement made in this entire thread and one which, I believe, is backed up by this entire thread.

Erin Go Brath

vesp wrote:

No he is not. In all fairness, Fratton Fred comes across as much less of a bigot than many a republican on this website. Fratton Fred just gave his opinion on what he thought of a convicted terrorist....who was a member of a terrorist organisation who have killed people on both sides of the border and elsewhere.

You're absolutely right. Saying a urinal should be named after someone, so they can p*ss on them is not all a bigoted point of view :rolleyes:

vesp wrote:

If you think the PIRA were not terrorists then you agree with the murder s of Garda McCabe and other people killed in the 26 counties by the PIRA ? You agree with Enniskillen , Le Mon, Bloody Friday, Guildford bombings etc etc ? You do not think the "guys" who done those atrocities are terrorists ?

Vesp, theres a big difference between the atrocities you've mentioned and what Bobby Sands was dubiously convicted for.

Quote from wikipedia
"[/QUOTE]
It was claimed that in October 1976 he was involved in the bombing of the Balmoral Furniture Company in Dunmurry, although he was never convicted of this bombing, and at the trial the judge said there was no evidence to support the assertion that he took part in the bombing. After the bombing, Sands and at least five others in the bomb team were allegedly involved in a gun battle with the police, although he was also never convicted of this, for lack of evidence. Abandoning two of their wounded friends, Seamus Martin and Gabriel Corbett, Sands with Joe McDonnell, Seamus Finucane and Sean Lavery, tried to escape in a car, but were caught. One of the revolvers used in the robbery was found in the car in which Sands was travelling.

His trial (in September 1977) saw him convicted of possession of firearms, the revolver from which bullets had been fired at the police after the bombing, and was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment.[9]

vesp wrote:

Before people start calling me a bigot and the moderator bans me , let me pointy out I condemn the terrorism committed by loyalists just as much as the terrorism committed by republicans.

Finally, something I actually agree with you on

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

You're absolutely right. Saying a urinal should be named after someone, so they can p*ss on them is not all a bigoted point of view :rolleyes:

why is it a bigotted point of view? look the word up in a dictionary and explain please.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

why is it a bigotted point of view? look the word up in a dictionary and explain please.

bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I'm basing this on your comments about Bobby Sands in post #20, which by the way you still havent retracted. In relation to this post your comments are certainly bigotted, and I can't understand why you keep defending the said post if as you claim you are not bigotted.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I'm basing this on your comments about Bobby Sands in post #20, which by the way you still havent retracted. In relation to this post your comments are certainly bigotted, and I can't understand why you keep defending the said post if as you claim you are not bigotted.

my comments were not based on the grounds of any prejudice though (Except my dislike for terrorists). I made no comment regarding Mr Sands racial or ethnic background and you will find no comments from me anywhere, on any board which refers to someone's racial ethnic background in a derogatory way.

Please retract your statement calling me a bigot.

csk

InFront wrote:

In terms of Bobby Sands, the British government, its institutions were the winner. But so was democracy

I would be very interested to hear why it is exactly, you think democracy was the winner?

InFront wrote:

Lots of people get bad deals in life: get over it.

With this comment I can't figure out are you: at best just propagating misinformed ignorance or at worst being deliberately simplistic in order to downplay the situation in the north to suit your own agenda.

InFront wrote:

I have just read Kevin Myers book

I think this might help explain the "crap" Walrus gumble

I have to say if you are putting forward Myers as some sort of authority on this period then it would undermine everything you have said so far and would add a perverse irony to you telling Hagar that he needed to accept that he had a bias.