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

Hagar

*Checks PJ's, they're blue. I must be a "he".*

vesp

Erin Go Brath wrote:

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

Thats not the point. Incidentally you even quote wikipedia for what Bobby Sands was imprisoned for ; do you believe everything posted on wikipedia ?
Erin Go Brath wrote "People are too quick to judge these guys as terrorists. "
I replied " 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 ?" I am not saying Bobby Sands killed, murdered and maimed everyone ; however he was an active member of a terrorist organisation which committed hundreds if not thousands of atrocities and crimes. He then chose to starve himself to death. Like many Irish people, I have no sympathy for him. I would have sympathy however for the innocent victims of violence on both sides.

vesp

boneless wrote:

If you had read the post properly you would have seen that there were no reports of casualties, not that there were no casualties...

I did actually read the post properly.
So you think there are loads of people killed but never reported in N. Ireland ? Talk about conspiracy theories !

boneless wrote:

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..

There was a free media who reported on N. Ireland. N. Ireland is a small place, about the same population as a decent size city elsewhere in the world. If loads of people were getting killed and injured without being reported I think at least some newspaper or journalist or tv station would have sussed it.
As regards some media being " heavily biased ", I agree with you ; an Phoblocht being one example it was almost comical at times if the matter was not so serious. There was a subtle bias in some quarters as well of course : I remember for example on RTE how when a hunger striker was dying for his country he was all over the news nearly every bulletin, but when he gave up the strike it was forgotten about very quickly.

boneless wrote:

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..

Obviously the nurse was wrong. Quite an easy thing to happen when hearing third or fourth hand information and when working under pressure, as I am sure they were given that it was one of the biggest atrocities ever on these islands in those decades.
I am sure that in New York at the time of 9/11 it would not be unreasonable for a nurse in a hospital there to hear than 6000 people lost their lives in the world trade centre.

boneless wrote:

The first casualty of a war is the truth.

According to the UN definition of "war" what happened in N. Ireland was not a war.

InFront

csk wrote:

entire post

dude, i thought you were on ignore aages ago!

InFront

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:

While I wouldn't necessarily agree with vesp on the construction of (even) a urinal to Bobby Sands, because if you do it for him you have to do it for all the other republican and loyalist scumbags in the North of Ireland, and tbh, there probably isn't such demand for sectarian urinating.

However, I do agree with him on the quoting wikipedia... for a history forum especially. The Shame.

Originally posted by hagar:
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?

Are you missing the point on purpose? You listen to every single viewpoint you can get. Eason's aren't selling Mein Kampf because it's a barrell of laughs you know, it's because you need to get everybody's take on a conflict or an era before you can judge with completely considered accuracy. Seriously, I'm not taking the piss but this is a supposed to be a history forum, this is seriously basic stuff a 13 year old could point that out.

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

Well if Bobby Sands is the loser that we all agree on, and the losers are lost in histroy, why are you defending him? Why has Gerry Adams written a book on him?
Or is it just your opinion that everyone should admire him, a member of the provisional IRA? Personally, I feel Sands is probably the Northern Ireland's best case to be put forwards with regards to the Theory of Human Evolution.

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

That is complete rubbish. You think people who wear the poppy or show marks of respect towards the dead of the first world war do so because of money? I recommend that you read Robert Graves' autobiography of life in the trenches and then come back and say how much war is always about the winner being right.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

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.

If you look closely I'm not actually calling you a bigot, I don't know even know you so that would hardly be fair. What I am saying however is that your view of Bobby Sands (who this thread is supposed to be about) is a bigotted point of view. I'll retract my statement about you having a bigotted point of view, if you retract your statement about Bobby Sands.

Erin Go Brath

InFront wrote:

While I wouldn't necessarily agree with vesp on the construction of (even) a urinal to Bobby Sands, because if you do it for him you have to do it for all the other republican and loyalist scumbags in the North of Ireland, and tbh, there probably isn't such demand for sectarian urinating.

This is your input to the debate about Bobby Sands........Why bother?

boneless

vesp, without going through your post line by line can I clarify some things; casualties were and still are covered up. The US army is doing it in Iraq at the moment. Non-US citizens who are in the US army are not being counted as casualties. It is no conspiracy theory.

As for a 'free' media... I will just sum it up in one word; establishment...

By the way, the friend who was in Daisy Hill happened to be an RUC officer at the time. I would say he was a credible witness. He told me some stories which would make you realise that there was a war in Northern Ireland allbeit undeclared.

csk

InFront wrote:

dude, i thought you were on ignore aages ago!

Hmmmm, I wonder why that would be?

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

This btw was a genuine question. Unlike some I could mention I'm actually interested in others opinions for what they're worth as this is ultimately how we learn isn't it? Now I have heard many opinions on what Sands did or didn't achieve, what the hungerstrikers did or didn't do, I have heard many an opinion on who did or didn't "win" but the one thing I never heard was that democracy was the winner. So I was curious to hear what made you think such a thing.

But alas! You won't be reading this, will you?

I guess that means I win by default?
YAY! Go me!

########################

Anyway, some one has pointed out this is the History forum with the inference being that views should somehow be objective.

With this in mind I would like to, in the interest of this objectivity and to add balance, address some points to the great and good here at the History & Heritage Forum.

vesp wrote:

As regards some media being " heavily biased ", I agree with you ; an Phoblocht being one example it was almost comical at times if the matter was not so serious. There was a subtle bias in some quarters as well of course : I remember for example on RTE

Obviously An Phoblacht is going to be grossly prejudiced, is this not to be expected? Anyway as much as there was bias on the Irish and Republican sides of the conflict, there was similar bias both subtle and heavy on the British and Unionist side. Now if one was to grow up on a diet of solely one side or the other, then they would be left with a bias themselves. This, I think, was Hagar's original point before it got lost in the mire of people jumping to conclusions.

Hagar wrote:

They are fine as far as they go but never forget that the winner writes the history books.

While I would agree with the underlying sentiment in the above, I feel it needs to be qualified somewhat.

Academic historians would for the most part take pride in trying to achieve an objective take on history(at least as objective as is humanly possible) and would see it as their primary duty. So I think personally it's unfair to lump everything with the above. With that being said there is an underlying truth to Hagar's statement.

Take WWI, the Allies winning meant they became morally justified, the Germans became the "bad guys", just look at the "war guilt" clause in the Treaty of Versailles. This idea that the Germans were the "bad guys" underpins the histories of WWI even to this day. If the Germans had won, I think it's fair to presume the the Germans would have been able to claim the moral high ground and Histories of the war would have been underpinned by this sentiment.

Now most books written in English will be by British and American scholars and will contain a certain pro-Allied spin anyway, this is "natural" bias and completely unavoidable.

Natural bias is impossible to avoid yet most historians will try to limit it's effect on their writing. They will attempt to give an historical opinion on history rather than a political opinion on history.

The difference being that with an Historical opinion will be objective, based on an understanding and an empathy towards the people who lived at the time, it will try and look at all possible angles and will be based on as much sources as possible. Usually it will try to be non-judgemental.

A political opinion of history will usually be the opposite, it will be subjective, no attempt will be made to understand the conditions of the people, no empathy will be displayed and it will be viewed from as narrow an angle as needed, whole rafts of facts will be deemed irrelevant as they don't fit the agenda.

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

If we take the above statement, it is indicative of a political opinion. The causes of "the troubles" are competely belittled and tossed aside as an irrelevance. The institutionalised discrimination of Nationalists, their treatment as second class citizens, the deinal of civil rights and the gerrymandering so as to achieve political domination of one group over another are put down as "Sh!t Happens".

This is the hallmark of a political opinion on history. It needs to justify a postion held in the present by manipulating the past to suit the present agenda. The worst kind will usually be dressed in the cloak of "objectivity". The person promulgating the political opinion will make the right sounds, objectivity, as much sources as possible, empathy will be bandied about inorder to disguise

In the end when challenged, they will retreat to subjective labels, will throw up straw men and toss aside anything that might undermine their position as irrelevant or in the most extreme examples will refuse to engage in debate.

After all their opinion is subjective, any correction is not just a correction of the period in question but a correction of the political opinionator's fundamental beliefs.

This is ultimately a menace to the proper telling of history and should not under any terms be countenanced.

vesp

boneless wrote:

vesp, without going through your post line by line can I clarify some things; casualties were and still are covered up. The US army is doing it in Iraq at the moment. Non-US citizens who are in the US army are not being counted as casualties. It is no conspiracy theory.

We are not talking about Iraq. We are talking about the recent troubles in N. Ireland , in an era when modern communications meant the worlds media did report on it comprehensively. If you think a significant number of extra people were killed in a single incident than were even reported you are entitled to your opinion. What do you think the real death toll in the troubles was so ? 5000 ? 25000 ? 50,000 ? :rolleyes:

boneless wrote:

As for a 'free' media... I will just sum it up in one word; establishment...

the establishment ? Most of the reporting we heard or read here in the Republic was by nationalists / catholics, but it was still a free country - here and in the UK - as far as reporting was concerned. People from all over the world of all political colours reported on N. Ireland at some stage or another.

boneless wrote:

By the way, the friend who was in Daisy Hill happened to be an RUC officer at the time. I would say he was a credible witness. He told me some stories which would make you realise that there was a war in Northern Ireland allbeit undeclared.

You say "a friend who was in Daisy Hill hospital at the time overheard a nurse saying that 32 had lost thier lives in the atrocity.". Now you say "he was a credible witness".
As I said, obviously the nurse was wrong. Quite an easy thing to happen when hearing third or fourth hand information and when working under pressure, as I am sure they were given that it was one of the biggest atrocities ever on these islands in those decades.
I am sure that in New York at the time of 9/11 it would not be unreasonable for a nurse in a hospital there to hear than 6000 people lost their lives in the world trade centre.
Also, as I said according to the UN definition of "war" what happened in N. Ireland was not a war. Like you I have heard plenty of stories from people there but calling it a war when it was not a war does not help anyone. Do you think 9/11 was an act of war ? Do not forget that road casulties in N. I. were higher than deaths due to the troubles in all years except one.

walrusgumble

.Also, as I said according to the UN definition of "war" what happened in N. Ireland was not a war. Like you I have heard plenty of stories from people there but calling it a war when it was not a war does not help anyone. Do you think 9/11 was an act of war ? Do not forget that road casulties in N. I. were higher than deaths due to the troubles in all years except one.[/QUOTE]

jesus vesp that is really bloody insensitive, i know it was an eample you made but come on man. any chance you can prove the figure on death toll:road accidents seen that you brought it up, i know it is maybe found but out of curiosty.

one thing though,on the un definition of war, does uk have a seat in un? after the usa do they have much power eg to veteo, have they a strong voice? if so i could you imagine the embarrasement of the uk rep in un going to new york hq (i think its there) saying right lads need help, send in some peace keepers cause we cant handle probles in our own back garden. hey maybe ur right though, hence always referred to as the troubles and not war of independence or war of right etc.if it was not war what would u call it (note regardless of vesp's answers let no one here jump on him and insult, if you make a reply to vesps response (assuming he wont sidestep the q) do so in a objectable fashion, for the debate sake.

infront with all your reading can you contribute here, as in the attitude of the normal british person looking at incidents happing to their fellow british citizens. from what i remember there were dumstruck. in front i am sure you might agree that the british gov and i am sure the irish gov, did not really have a clue how to handle the situation back then (round early 70's. many mps dealing with ni barely knew the place or understood why what was happening happened.

look vesp, yes or no catholics/nationalist (i am sure unionist/protestants fleed to uk or elsewhere also) fleed ni as their estate were being burned out by riots and attacks, they fleed here. today i believe, respectful commentators saw those incidents as the worst incidents (sorry ethnic cleansing way to strong a word without authory to back this up) since ww2 in europe (obviously what happened in the former russian states in recent years were worse), these people were akin to refugees. why?

first they were attacked/persecuted and many were turned away from employment oppurtunities . on the ground of their religion/nationality (they saw themselves as irish), political opinion or social group.

secondly considering power sharing on all levels of gov (when direct rule was not in place) was not the thing and gerrymandering made sure nationalist's votes be ineffective and considering what group made exclusively up the police and how their relations with british army (yes they were warmly welcomed by nationalist at first) turned sour after bloody sunday, one could hardly expect them to avail of state protection. so bar the fact the could relocate to the south they were basically refugees.

so how could you dismiss the troubles not being a war or at the very least internal conflict within the *uk*. bush uses that word alot doesn't he, war on terror. 9/11 not an act of war (or terrorism to be fair), was't bin laden challenging the us? or attack it. what is an act of war, wasn't the assination of franz ferindnad an act of war, which helped ww1 to occur?

vesp

Walrusgumble ; when you bother to learn some history, use the quote function and use capital letters where appropriate then I will bother responding to you. Your post is too garbled as it is.

walrusgumble

well ok computer skills aint too great, late nite, thank god it is week day if it was weekened and i was here doing this i would have to have a word with myself. right i will fix it up.

now as to ur answer when its fixed, read it and answer, stop avoiding the question i put to u, pretty please, my lack of computer skills got nothing to do with a very reasonable question i am putting to you nor my history knowlege impaired, i do attempt to be objective and i do have a good understanding of the ulster question (check out my threads on the did dev want a united ireland if you must), you snobby ----.

has anyone else got an issue with my question post 74 (bar the fact it was badly laid out). vesp said the troubles in ni was not a war. maybe it was or maybe it was not (depends on your side of the fence), I dont agree and for the sake of debate I challenge him. But instead vesp (surprise surprise) uses the same usual tactic, picks out mistakes such as spellings etc and raves on about not knowing our history(shock horror). if he or anyone at least attempts to answer it, it is case close and that will be that. I have tried to be reasonable as I imagine vesp may make his answer and his opinion, (which he is entitled to) and some people including my self may get accused for getting personal in our response. Bare in mind many of us here have been accused in the past for not caring about the horrible things in ww2 and now here, in this post, vesp comes out with this. so the following:

My distinguished guest, vesp made the following quote: (how is that so far vesp, any errors, ha)

"Also, as I said according to the UN definition of "war" what happened in N. Ireland was not a war. Like you I have heard plenty of stories from people there but calling it a war when it was not a war does not help anyone. Do you think 9/11 was an act of war ? Do not forget that road casulties in N. I. were higher than deaths due to the troubles in all years except one."

My response: In my opinion, your quote is a wee bit insensitive. Jesus innocent people get killed in car accidents but comparing that to the troubles is a bit strange as I believe there was a war. It was not a war in the usual sense, but a conflict nonethe less. I now ask vesp can he prove that the figures for road casulties in Northern Ireland during the Troubles were higher the the casulties from both communities, for each year. This was out of curiosty.

Now I ask, has any court, bar a court in the UK or Ireland ever say, the Troubles in Northern Ireland fall within the definition of a war. If this is so, I concede this argument and we can all go to the kitchen and get a cup of tea and move on. However, for debate sake, I ask, did the UK have a powerful voice in the UN throughou the Troubles?. If so, the UK would hardly appreciate other countries telling them they have to sort their mess out. The UK would surely find themselves in an embarrassing situation, in the eyes of the rest of the world, had they gone to UN HQ in New york and asked the UN to send peace keeping troops to the North, by reason that they did not understand why the Nationalist did what they did or truelly understand the situation. This after all was a matter for the UK and yet they were unable to control their own subjects.

I wish In Front to come into the discussion at this point, to contribute to his understanding of the general attitude of the normal English people on the Troubles when they first started.Was it one of disbelief that they were watching real life mayham in their country, albeit a couple of hundred miles away? Did some MP'S really know what was going on in Northern Ireland or ever visited Ireland? I do believe that the UN defintion of war maybe in the form of legislation, however, like all law, the interpretations and applications of it are never set in stone. Judicial Review on he interpretation of Article 40 of Bunreacht na hÉireann is an example.

I notice many people around Ireland refer to the troubles as a war/or at best an internal conflict within the UK jurisdiction. One example of a war is the replacement of people. I would like to ask vesp, does he or does he not agree or believe, that the one of the consequences of attacks and reprisal attacks by both sides was the attacks on homes and housing estates. In Northern Ireland, during the Troubles, it is well documented that thousands of Nationalist/Catholics were forced to flee their homes due to secterian attacks on their homes. Some of these people has no involvement with IRA/UVF etc. Respectful Commentators at that time referred to the this mass replacement as the worse since, and I mean since, WW2 and the worse in Europe at that time. What was also astonishing was the fact it was happening in a so called country of the free world. Check out our President, Mary McAleese's account of her problems living in Belfast. I submit for debate sake that these people, Unionist/Protestant community included were akin to Refugee. The reason for this is as following:

Firstly, many were attacked/persecuted and many were turned away from employment oppurtunities (worthwhile employment) on the ground of their religion/nationality (they saw themselves as irish), political opinion or social group. This could hardly be disputed as employment oppurtunities was one key issue in the Civil Rights Movement.

Seconly,(a) considering power sharing on all levels of government (during first Stormount days) was not popular (arise Dr Rev Paisley);(b)gerrymandering occured insuring the nationalist's votes be would be ineffective (many nationalist mayors around then? Why was Derry's University put in Coleraine when the City would be the perfect place for it?) and (c) considering whichcommunity exclusively made up the police and how the Nationalist's relations with the British army (yes they were warmly welcomed by nationalist at first) turned sour after bloody sunday, one could hardly expect them to avail of state protection.

So bar the fact the could relocate to the south they were basically refugees. I.E. roughly, People who had to leave their homes in Northern Ireland and could not return due to fear of persecution due to their race/religion/nationality/ethnic/political opinion or social grouping, and could not avail or expect protection from their State.

I merely ask Vesp, considering what happened between the communities how could it be dismissed what was done together were not acts of war. The UN are okay agreeing that its war when rival tribes in places like Nigeria, Congo or Somalia are at each other's throat in their repsective Civil Wars.

I also merely ask on vesps opinion as to whether or not he believes that waht happened on 9/11 was not an act of war on america and the western world in the eyes of that nut case Bin Laden. After taking what you say on tv all in , how long did it take everyone to come to the conclusion that Bush will be writing up the cheques so they could get back on repaying beardie the compliment, and hence a start of a war?

Please note, I am not stating this was a war and I am right, because I aint, I was not ever born, it is just a question i put forward to vesp and anyone else who bothers to responed. thank you. I appologise if I could have done this in a shorter form. And vesp at the end of the day, I have a fair idea on the side you take with regard to history, so seen you are so compassionate about the injustices of the every day normal run of the mill Jew in WW2 try and see answer this if you were not Irish/British. Maybe pretend to be an American or some other third national at this piont if you bother to answer.really sorry for going off the mark considering this is about bobby sands and may not be relevant.

InFront

as in the attitude of the normal british person looking at incidents happing to their fellow british citizens. from what i remember there were dumstruck. in front i am sure you might agree that the british gov and i am sure the irish gov, did not really have a clue how to handle the situation back then (round early 70's. many mps dealing with ni barely knew the place or understood why what was happening happened.

First of all it may just be your the way that sentance was built and may be unintended but, as a simple matter of fact, I happen not to be British.
I don't agree with you that British people were dumbstruck at what was happening in Northern Ireland in the 80s in the way many republicans imagine they should have been.

Republicans were acting out against Britain with murder. Murdering, as a man reading his newspaper in london or Liverpool or Newcastle would have seen it, innocent civilians loyal to Britain, as they had every right to be loyal.

The Republicans' great error was that they sought to rectify the terrible situation that many Catholics in the North were in by using the antagonistic force of terrorism against Britain. This was Bobby Sand's republican "brotherhood".

The PIRA and the INLA (the latter actually being detested in parts of the North by what would seem the majority of Nationalists) created an impossible situation for Northern catholics that they could not realistically escape from so long as terrorism ruled. Do you want to create a tribute to a man who was partie to that ransom of Ulster?

Everybody is aware that there were other solutions: Take Jerry Fitt: responsible for the Civil Rights Movement, and the SDLP, two of the greatest things to come out of Northern Ireland on the nationalist side in that era. He also helped bring down a British government in Westminster by taking his seat there as he was democratically mandated to do. Result? His home was attacked by the Provisionals, Mr Sands' acquaintances. What do you think of that?
If Jerry Fitt saw the way forward, and if John Hume saw the way forward for Republican politics, why could Sands & Co not see it?

Did he and his conspirators just choose not to see other ways?
Yes, I would be of that opinion. Building a monument to this man would be an insult to all people of fair mind and decency on the entire island.

Finally I would echo what vesp said about the way you're posting your comments. The least you could do is not call people names (although I see the muppet piece has been deleted) for failing to want to read the mess you're posting here.

Fratton Fred

OK, I think Walrusgrumble may have been referring to me. Anyway, here is my opinion of the general view of English people, (obviously I can only base this on discussions I have had and can’t speak for 50 million people).

I’m Anglican, I have friends who are Catholic, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh. It’s not an issue. Religion just never gets discussed as it is not a barrier to anything. Our schools are generally not religion based (I know they are not officially here anymore, but a school called “Our Lady of good Council run by sister so and so kind of defeats the purpose imho) so for people to hate one another over religion is probably beyond our comprehension. The same applies with the Orange order, whats that all about? Not many English people actually understand what an “Orangeman” is. The concept does not really exist in England. I’d also like to point out, that generally speaking, those people in Northern Ireland described as “Protestants” are Presbyterians; Presbyterianism is not widely followed in England and is very different from the Anglican and Methodist branches of Protestantism more common in England (They are generally considered extremists).

To give a few examples of English attitudes. After the first cease fire there was an Orange order March accompanied by the usual riots. The general feeling here was why march? Finally there is a glimmer of hope and they go and **** it up by provoking the other side. But on the flip side, if these idiots want to provoke a reaction, why give it to them? Why not just stage a very public strategy of “ignore the feckers and hopefully they will go away”? (Overly simplistic I know, but hopefully you get the idea)

Holy Cross School was another incident which was met by disbelief in England. The pictures on TV of a snarling “Loyalist” shouting abuse at young school girls and their mothers whilst walking to school WTF is that all about? Sorry but these people may consider themselves loyalists, but they certainly aren’t loyal to any values my country holds dear.

There is a lot of empathy with the Republican cause, but certainly not the PIRA or any other para military organisation. I often ask myself what if France were occupying Kent, would I be happy about it and the answer is definitely no, Although I would like to think I would not resort to killing innocent people.

Now, here is a good point for discussion, when the PIRA come to London, Guildford, Birmingham, Warrington etc and detonate car bombs, what are they expecting to be the reaction from the English people? “Oh dear they have obviously got a grievance, lets give them back northern Ireland” (Which, I would argue, up until recently would have seen an unprecedented amount of blood shed there), or do you think they will just turn round and say, whatever it is these bastards want, don’t fecking give it to them.

Back to Bobby Sands, from an English perspective we have a guy who is a convicted terrorist saying he wants better treatment and political prisoner status for IRA prisoners in Long Kesh. If not he’ll starve myself to death. Oh, let me think about this for a minute, your lot are the ones that bombed a pub in Guildford. Killed Lord Mountbatten and murdered 18 paras at Warren Point, bombed Harrods, Horseguards etc etc etc. Should we spend more tax payers money by giving in to you, or should we just let you die?

Ask yourself what your reaction would be? People do not have long memories, by this time Bloody Sunday was forgotten about and “800 years of oppression” is not exactly recognised in Britain.

Now then, why I describe Bobby Sands act as a waste of life. He has become a hero amongst many, which I fail to understand, but he has. He is despised in England which in my mind makes his act a failure because it is not the Irish people the republican movement needs to win over, it is the voters in the UK because if they feel strongly enough about a united Ireland it will happen. Like it or not, they are the ones who vote in governments that will make it happen. Ask yourselves another question, what does the average Englishman have to gain from Northern Ireland staying in the union? Northern Ireland is little more than a good training ground for our troops and a hell of a tax drain.

I may have garbled on a bit, but hopefully I have raised some interesting points and you will see where I am coming from.

csk

FrattonFred wrote:

I’d also like to point out, that generally speaking, those people in Northern Ireland described as “Protestants” are Presbyterians; Presbyterianism is not widely followed in England and is very different from the Anglican and Methodist branches of Protestantism more common in England (They are generally considered extremists).

That's a good point and as I was reading it I was thinking how I don't even know what branch of "Protestantism" some of my friends would be. They would always just be seen as Protestant or Church of Ireland.

FrattonFred wrote:

Ask yourselves another question, what does the average Englishman have to gain from Northern Ireland staying in the union? Northern Ireland is little more than a good training ground for our troops and a hell of a tax drain.

You see this is what I don't get. I mean, if the people vote for the Government and the British Government has always seen it as their right to be in Ireland (in this case the north), then there is a certain amount of complicity between the people and the Government in upholding that percieved right.

If then as you say, English people feel no afinity to Unionists, see the North as an economic drain and feel empathy for the republican cause and if we leave aside the detrimental effect the atrocities in London, Guildford etc. had for the minute, then why are the people still upholding the British Government's percieved right of being in Ireland?

FrattonFred wrote:

it is the voters in the UK because if they feel strongly enough about a united Ireland it will happen.

That could very well be put forward as one of the fundamental reasons why republicans adopted violence over constitutional agitation in the first place.

FrattonFred wrote:

Back to Bobby Sands, from an English perspective we have a guy who is a convicted terrorist saying he wants better treatment and political prisoner status for IRA prisoners in Long Kesh. If not he’ll starve myself to death. Oh, let me think about this for a minute, your lot are the ones that bombed a pub in Guildford. Killed Lord Mountbatten and murdered 18 paras at Warren Point, bombed Harrods, Horseguards etc etc etc. Should we spend more tax payers money by giving in to you, or should we just let you die?

I know your only giving an English perspective and that's fair enough but for the record I would just like to point out a few things.

Sands and the rest of the Hungerstrikers weren't looking for "better treatment". They were protesting against Britain's attempts to criminalise the Irish struggle for Independence. They wanted political status not for their own benefits but as a symbol. It had been withdrawn as a deliberate British policy to demonise them (not that the British Government had to try that hard later on).

In the words of Sands himself,

I’ll wear no convicts uniform nor meekly serve my time
That Britain might brand Irelands fight 800 years of crime.

Now the idea of a hungerstrike is not to "let myself die". It's an ancient Gaelic custom that was enshrined in the Brehon Laws known iirc as Toscad.

The idea was that you would shame the other person into concessions. Now if the striker died then the person who let it happen would have to pay the family and would also be considered cursed forever more.

I'm not sure of the precise procedure involved, obviously you couldn't just decide to hungerstrike someone just because they looked at you the wrong way or whatever. There were restrictions involved but ultimately the idea was that you wouldn't die because death would be a worse outcome for the other person than them having to give in.

Now with the hunger strike being such an indelibly Irish custom, the deaths would arouse a lot of anger among the different elements of Irish society from die hard republicans to moderate nationalists to even Fine Gaelers.

Thatcher's handling of the affair was seen as the usual British attitude of superiority over the Irish and was greatly resented. In fact I would argue the British Government's handling of the affair set back peace on this island by a generation or more (especially Thatcher's attitude, her infamous "out, out out," tirade in the aftermath of the Anglo-Irish Agreement being another example along with the Hungerstrikes).

Now keep in mind also the reaction outside these islands, there is a street named after Sands in Teheran, many organistions across Europe sympathised with the hungerstrikers plight, the French President Mitterand even offered to come to one of the funerals on behalf of the French Nation but of course the cowardice of the Irish Government wouldn't allow him, he offered his condolences instead, I think there was also another Head of State who offered to go as well but I can't remember who.

vesp

walrusgumble wrote:

vesp said the troubles in ni was not a war. maybe it was or maybe it was not

I said "according to the UN definition of "war" what happened in N. Ireland was not a war." I did not actually say if I thought it was a war or not. It all depends on ones definition of war I suppose.

walrusgumble wrote:

I notice many people around Ireland refer to the troubles as a war/or at best an internal conflict within the UK jurisdiction. One example of a war is the replacement of people. I would like to ask vesp, does he or does he not agree or believe, that the one of the consequences of attacks and reprisal attacks by both sides was the attacks on homes and housing estates.I merely ask Vesp, considering what happened between the communities how could it be dismissed what was done together were not acts of war.

I do not think the UN base their definition of war on the "replacement of people". As well as the replacement of people which you are so conscious of, do not forget on the other side of the coin there has also been replacement of people ...many non-catholics point to the displacent of non-catholics from the west side of Derry, from the border areas etc. As everyone knows, the numbers killed in violence in N. Ireland only exceed those killed on the roads there in one year, in the early seventies. The reason , however, it was not officially a war was because the terrorist groups had no mandate from a government or country....they were just terrorist groups. The PIRA for example did not dress up in uniforms and have army barracks and bases and contact addresses - nor did they ever attempt to follow the rules of the geneva convention eg with regard to the treatment of prisoners.

walrusgumble wrote:

I also merely ask on vesps opinion as to whether or not he believes that waht happened on 9/11 was not an act of war on america and the western world in the eyes of that nut case Bin Laden.

It does not matter what "that nut case Bin Laden" thought regarding if it was a war or not. It was more of an act of terrorism.

walrusgumble wrote:

After taking what you say on tv all in , how long did it take everyone to come to the conclusion that Bush will be writing up the cheques so they could get back on repaying beardie the compliment, and hence a start of a war?

When the US and a host of other countries invaded Iraq and attacked the Iraqi armed forces that was a war. As regards " how long did it take everyone to come to the conclusion that Bush will be writing up the cheques so they could get back on repaying beardie the compliment" it was not very long ...9/11 was a wake up call to the west and I seem to remember the American government and people wanting to track the organisation responsible down as soon as possible.

vesp

csk wrote:

Thatcher's handling of the affair was seen as the usual British attitude of superiority over the Irish and was greatly resented..

Maybe seen by you as that but not by everyone else - after all the majority of people in N. Ireland definitely did not see it that way, and the British people and govt did not see it that way. Many would argue Sands was exploited by the republican movement and he died in vain , as he and his comrades did not get their concessions. The hunger strike was a failed tactic which just caused more division and deaths.

csk wrote:

Now keep in mind also the reaction outside these islands, there is a street named after Sands in Teheran, many organistions across Europe sympathised with the hungerstrikers plight, the French President Mitterand even offered to come to one of the funerals on behalf of the French Nation but of course the cowardice of the Irish Government wouldn't allow him, he offered his condolences instead, I think there was also another Head of State who offered to go as well but I can't remember who.

lol. One street in Iraq named after Sands and you think the world was on his side ? Do not forget in that era ( the eighties ) the PIRA was condemned by people across the political spectrum worldwide from the Russian govt. to the US govt.

walrusgumble

thanks vesp, fratton and in front for contributing. i am aware of waht the citizens in britain thought of what was going on in ni but i left it for ye to say it in a more intellegnt way.

in front you are and fratton you are spot on about the attitudes of britain when many innocent british who may have never step foot in ni were blown to pieces in their pubs. Maybe we should understand this better considering the reactions of Dublines when loyalist bombed Dublin, wasn't the British Embassy burned down (ok not the reaction the British had in dealing with the Irish in Britain, but what can you do, consider the perfect oppurtunity of extending our hand of friendship to unionist by allowing them their "love ulster" parade in dublin this year, and you know what happened there, sick)

I can remember the london bombings in 1993ish because my dad was pacing all over the house trying to get in contact with his sisters. Omagh was a wake up call as far as i was concerned about whether the physical force was worth it, i was only 14 so a wee bit naive. i hope by bringing this argument to the fore, might make up for some on the nonsense said on the 800 years thread. even I as a moderate Nationalist, who sided with Hume and Mallon, found some of it to be ridiculous. At least ye have made comments that would be difficult to rebut.

One thing I do observe is the attitude of some people in Ireland of whether they would be keen of Sinn Fein in the government. Not even fianna fail want anything to do with them. i despise the fact that there were posters once around to free the castelera 5 or 6 not sure but these thugs had killed a member of the Gardai in a bank raid (i am related to that cop)

as far as thatcher is concerned, well is suppose she was concerned about her people, same reason for going to the Faulklands (maybe a bit naive dependng on what fence you sit on) actually my qualms with her are of an entirely different reason eg closing down coal mines in north england etc

as far as the british people themselves wishing ni t remain in the UK, i dont think they would really give a toss. i am aware of the millions and millions of pounds from tax payers money used to keep ni running, when maybe it could be used in places like huddersfield, cornwall etc.will it effect their everyday lives, doubt it. any way both ireland and the uk have agreed that it is for the people of ni themselves to decide whther or not they want to remain in the uk or a united ireland. anyway could this country deal with another 2 million? haven;t we got to sort out our own issues like dept of health etc.

the best solution,imo, is for stormount to get up and running. for both communities to trust each other and to consider themselves as ni and improve the place. to allow themselves to stand on the internaional stage and show that it can be noted for other worthwhile things rather than secterain volence and bombings. I do not believe puting a monument up of bobby stands would be a good idea. maybe in a prodiment nationalist area if they wish but not in the middle of a city say belfast or even the catholic dominated area such as derry. losing the london derry prefix would be good also. would there ever be a consideration of removing carson's statute outside of stormount or would that be a big fat no?

vesp

walrusgumble wrote:

thanks vesp, fratton and in front for contributing. i am aware of waht the citizens in britain thought of what was going on in ni but i left it for ye to say it in a more intellegnt way.

I, vesp, am Irish and do not speak for the citizens of Britain. I gather "in front" is Irish too. I for one was around when the hunger strikes were on and I witnessed the intimidation and marches first hand. I saw the damage done to buildings in Dublin city centre ( the British Airways office and British home stores ), I remember other targets perceived to be British in the republic being targetted ( eg a bus belonging to English fishermen being burnt, a masonic lodge being burnt down , protestant buildings being vandalised etc ). I had one English friend living here for many years and who received a few anonymous phone calls telling him to go home. Some of the black flags attached to telegraph poles were booby trapped to discourage people from taking them down.

csk

vesp wrote:

Maybe seen by you as that but not by everyone else

Are you denying that Thatcher's attitude is resented in Ireland? lol indeed!

When 30 odd thousand elected Sands an M.P. (btw that was ten thousand more votes than Thatcher recieved) and Thatcher's Government attempted to pass legislation that would invalidate the result, did this not show Nationalists that they their candidates would not be accepted?

Did Thatcher's allowing ten men including an M.P. and a T.D. die instead of engaging them, not show Nationalists, already extremely suspicious of the Government, that debate in the House of Commons would ultimately be futile?

Did Thatcher's callous intransigence not harden the Provisional IRA's attitude towards negotiation with the British Government and thus further drive the two parties apart?

vesp wrote:

The hunger strike was a failed tactic

Yes it was a failed tactic in that ten men who did not want to die, died.

But did it not win some concessions?

Did it not win support to the Republican cause on this island?

Did it not raise the plight of the Republican cause around the world?

Did it not shame the British Government and the British State before the eyes of the world?

vesp wrote:

One street in Iraq named after Sands and you think the world was on his side ?

Is a street named after Sands in far flung Iran(btw not Iraq) with no ties of any kind to Ireland, not indicative of the kind of support showed to the hungerstrikers?

What was the President of France, the same France that was a close ally of Britain, offering his condolences indicative of ?

It ws not only those two countries, many many other bodies supported the Hungerstrikers, what is that indicative of ?

walrusgumble

vesp wrote:

I, vesp, am Irish and do not speak for the citizens of Britain. I gather "in front" is Irish too. I for one was around when the hunger strikes were on and I witnessed the intimidation and marches first hand. I saw the damage done to buildings in Dublin city centre ( the British Airways office and British home stores ), I remember other targets perceived to be British in the republic being targetted ( eg a bus belonging to English fishermen being burnt, a masonic lodge being burnt down , protestant buildings being vandalised etc ). I had one English friend living here for many years and who received a few anonymous phone calls telling him to go home. Some of the black flags attached to telegraph poles were booby trapped to discourage people from taking them down.

no no sorry lads, i was not implying that ye were english, ye have clearly stated your irish in many thread. it was just that from past threads ye whether it was your beliefs or for debate sake, always had more objective arguments as oppose to say bias nationalist opinions. i might have not agreeded with alot from ye in past, but some, sometimes were good points, so i ask ye to contribute. sorry if i gave ye he impression.

InFront

No I think a lot of us agree on basic points. Despite the fact that Carson's statue seems to urge people into Stormont (an urge that seems to be lost on many Unionists, ironically), I do agree that it is rather inappropraite.
Both Carson and Sands were ultimately destructive figures in ulster politics, and neither deserve a statue.
Both may have acted in good faith, but neither have succeeded in creating a peaceful or a happy Ulster. If Ulster is ever peaceful and happy, it will be despite these men, not because of them.

I think statues of a men like Hume and Trimble would be far more appropriate. They are insignificant players on the Northern scene by now, and although I believe history will record their efforts with gratitude, I think their courage in pushing for peace in the North should be marked in a more permanent way by their fellow citizens.

vesp

csk wrote:

Did it not shame the British Government and the British State before the eyes of the world?

No. The British government and the majority of the population of N. Ireland were greatly opposed to the hungerstrikers, and refused to be intimidated by bombers and murderers - the same organisation which killed Jerry McCabe years later.

csk wrote:

Is a street named after Sands in far flung Iran with no ties of any kind to Ireland, not indicative of the kind of support showed to the hungerstrikers?

No - that was more a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in the eyes of Iran. The regime in Iran was no friend of the British govt.

csk wrote:

What was the President of France, the same France that was a close ally of Britain, offering his condolences indicative of ?

What was the President of Ireland , offering his condolences on the death of Hitler, indicative of ? Even though Dev at the time was aware of the Nazi extrermination camps ?

csk wrote:

It ws not only those two countries, many many other bodies supported the Hungerstrikers, what is that indicative of ?

Is that the best you can do ? One man in France ( who also condemned the PIRA ) and a street naming committee in a middle eastern city ?
Everyone from the Americans to the Russians strongly condemned the PIRA. Do not kid yourself there was widespread support around the world for the killers of Jean McColville, the bombers of Bloody Friday, Le Mons etc etc or the snipers / car bombers who carried out their mini ethnic cleansing campaign in border areas.

A Dub in Glasgo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLhj6tT7bMI

LovelyHurling

IRA Cowards

One thing that angers Northern Unionists, and almost certainly must anger Northern Catholics, is when people in the South start putting forward an irrelevant opinion with no real awareness of the troubles. When you emptily reference a video like you have, commemorating one of the most despicable propogandists for the IRA since its inception, I have to question your knowledge and your awareness of who the provos are.

csk

vesp wrote:

No. The British government and the majority of the population of N. Ireland were greatly opposed to the hungerstrikers, and refused to be intimidated by bombers and murderers - the same organisation which killed Jerry McCabe years later.

I suppose I would agree, if the murder of 14 unarmed peace protestors or being convicted of using inhuman torture in The European Court of Human Rights, did not shame them, nothing would.

Sure what's a few dead "paddies" anyway, eh vesp?

But not before the eyes of the world? lol!

Come on vesp take off the Union Jack glasses, the actions of the British Government in letting ten men, including a member of their own parlaiment and a member of a foreign parlaiment die, shocked and disgusted the world.

vesp wrote:

No - that was more a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in the eyes of Iran. The regime in Iran was no friend of the British govt.

I think you are contradicting yourself there. The answer to my question was, regardless of why, YES it was INDICATIVE of the support they were shown.

vesp wrote:

What was the President of Ireland , offering his condolences on the death of Hitler, indicative of ? Even though Dev at the time was aware of the Nazi extrermination camps ?

Why not answer the question at hand instead of trying to fudge the issue with irrelevance. Is your lack of an answer because it is most definitly a YES?

vesp wrote:

One man in France

You do mean the most powerful man in France, don't you? A man who on behalf of himself and his Nation of 60million gave his condolences.

vesp wrote:

Is that the best you can do ?

Well how about the Portugese Government(traditional Ally's of the British going back as far as the Napoleanic Wars) who condemned Thatcher, or all of France's main trade unions who supported the hungerstrikers, or the various state legislatures across America who passed resolutions supporting the Hungerstrikers and of course the aforementioned Bobby Sands St. in Tehran.

vesp wrote:

Everyone from the Americans

You mean Americans like the following, who submitted this report on Human Rights in the north of Ireland before the U.S. House of Represntatives.

vesp you should take note of this particular quote:

Yet at the same time I cannot underscore strongly enough that terrorism is unacceptable... [yet] I have equal condemnation for the counter-terrorism and counter-violence that follwed

Here's a few more interesting snippets:

Amazingly and regrettably the British Government failed to repeal these sweeping policy State powers when it had a clear window of opportunity to do so- during the year and a half ceasefire which began in the late summer and early fall of 1994.
It seems to me that the power to arbitarily arrest, detain, intimidate; the power to deny timely and appropriate legal counsel; and the power to compel self incrimination is an abuse of power normally associated with dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

And speaking of double standards, in contravention of internationally recognised standards, The British Government uses plastic bullets in one and only one place-the north of Ireland. This has not escaped the notice of the U.N. Committee Against Torture which has been highly critical.

He[Martin O'Brien, executive director of the Committee on the Administration of justice] also comments that there has not been an adequate explanation for the siginificant disparity in the targets of the plastic bullets, with some 5340 [out of 6000] being used against Catholic crowds.

And Michael Finucane will testify today about the killing of his father. Yes it was an absolute tragedy that his father was killed. It was terrible he was shot in front of his family. He was shot by Loyalist Paramilitaries, all of which is absolutely horrible.
What makes it all the more horrible though from a democratic point of view, is the fact that he would not have been killed without the co-operation of the police force in the north of Ireland, the police force, the British Army were active collaborators in the killing of his father.

vesp wrote:

Do not kid yourself there was widespread support around the world for the killers of Jean McColville, the bombers of Bloody Friday, Le Mons etc etc or the snipers / car bombers who carried out their mini ethnic cleansing campaign in border areas.

No vesp, do not kid yourself that there was no support for the hungerstrikers around the world, that there was no support in Ireland among among people of all shades of political opinion, do not kid yourself that the British Government were angels in all of this.

If you want to get into a pathetic pissing contest about what side has more right to play the victims, I suggest you do so elsewhere.

Grievous wrongs were done on all sides of the conflict. There is no need to drag this into a tit-for-tat who did what.

I will leave you with this snippet, vesp, from the above report and suggest it would do you well to digest what it is saying.

This [conflict in the north] is not only a battle between Catholics and Protestants. It is not only a story of discrimination. This is bad enough. But as Americans we should have a deeper understanding of what this problem is all about. It is really about the last vestiges of colonialism, and to remember that we too could not tolerate living under the occupation of foreign troops with other peole responsible for own history.
The people of Ireland are entitiled to their own self-determination as are peoples all over the world.

vesp

yawn. Is that the best you can do ? You do however make one or two sensible comments which I agree with.

Grievous wrongs were done on both sides of the conflict. I condemn the Shankhill butchers and terrorists on the loyalist side just as much as I condemn republican terrorists. You, however, seem to have a soft spot for the terrorists on one side. Bear in mind the PIRA killed more Catholics than the security services in N. Ireland. Also bear in mind the RUC detained and imprisoned a higher percentage of people responsible for loyalist terrorism than for republican terrorism. As regards "the occupation of foreign troops" in N. Ireland - it was hardly occupation when the majority of people there wanted them there to help maintain security due to the threat from terrorists. Thankfully the terrorist threat is now much reduced and the army is not much more visible than in most other countries around the world.

As I said, do not kid yourself there was widespread support around the world for the killers of Jean McColville, the bombers of Bloody Friday, Le Mons etc etc or the snipers / car bombers who carried out their mini ethnic cleansing campaign in border areas.

InFront

vesp wrote:

Thankfully the terrorist threat is now much reduced and the army is not much more visible than in most other countries around the world.

How ironic, when you think about it.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

You see this is what I don't get. I mean, if the people vote for the Government and the British Government has always seen it as their right to be in Ireland (in this case the north), then there is a certain amount of complicity between the people and the Government in upholding that percieved right.

The "British" see Northern Ireland no dofferently to Scotland or Wales. Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales are heading towards devolution with everyones blessing. The people preventing devolution in Northern Irelend are the Irish. As far as I am aware the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to stay part of the Union

csk wrote:

If then as you say, English people feel no afinity to Unionists, see the North as an economic drain and feel empathy for the republican cause and if we leave aside the detrimental effect the atrocities in London, Guildford etc. had for the minute, then why are the people still upholding the British Government's percieved right of being in Ireland?

but as I said earlier, the majority of peopl in Northern Ireland wish to stay part of the Union. [/QUOTE]

csk wrote:

I know your only giving an English perspective and that's fair enough but for the record I would just like to point out a few things.

Sands and the rest of the Hungerstrikers weren't looking for "better treatment". They were protesting against Britain's attempts to criminalise the Irish struggle for Independence. They wanted political status not for their own benefits but as a symbol. It had been withdrawn as a deliberate British policy to demonise them (not that the British Government had to try that hard later on).

In the words of Sands himself,

I’ll wear no convicts uniform nor meekly serve my time
That Britain might brand Irelands fight 800 years of crime.

Now the idea of a hungerstrike is not to "let myself die". It's an ancient Gaelic custom that was enshrined in the Brehon Laws known iirc as Toscad.

The idea was that you would shame the other person into concessions. Now if the striker died then the person who let it happen would have to pay the family and would also be considered cursed forever more.

I'm not sure of the precise procedure involved, obviously you couldn't just decide to hungerstrike someone just because they looked at you the wrong way or whatever. There were restrictions involved but ultimately the idea was that you wouldn't die because death would be a worse outcome for the other person than them having to give in.

Now with the hunger strike being such an indelibly Irish custom, the deaths would arouse a lot of anger among the different elements of Irish society from die hard republicans to moderate nationalists to even Fine Gaelers.

Thatcher's handling of the affair was seen as the usual British attitude of superiority over the Irish and was greatly resented. In fact I would argue the British Government's handling of the affair set back peace on this island by a generation or more (especially Thatcher's attitude, her infamous "out, out out," tirade in the aftermath of the Anglo-Irish Agreement being another example along with the Hungerstrikes).

That makes things a lot clearer. The "English" way would be more 1916 Uprising/charge of the light brigade type stuff. Both relatively futile but incredibly brave gestures.

csk wrote:

Now keep in mind also the reaction outside these islands, there is a street named after Sands in Teheran, many organistions across Europe sympathised with the hungerstrikers plight, the French President Mitterand even offered to come to one of the funerals on behalf of the French Nation but of course the cowardice of the Irish Government wouldn't allow him, he offered his condolences instead, I think there was also another Head of State who offered to go as well but I can't remember who.

I think the phrase used earlier, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This phrase would apply equally to Franceh as it would Iran