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

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

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?

Adopts best Ali G voice;

Is it cos I'm Irish?:rolleyes:

What was the British government to do?

Everytime someone wants to change something they blow up a few cars and then threaten to starve themselves to death?

Say Alex Salmond declared he was goig to go on hunger strike if Scottish devolution doesn't happen immediately, even though only 48% of Scotlad wants it? how democratic is that?

PHB

Say Alex Salmond declared he was goig to go on hunger strike if Scottish devolution doesn't happen immediately, even though only 48% of Scotlad wants it? how democratic is that?

What about the other 48% though? Are they irrelevent? When they become 51% do they instantly get majority control, and can do anything they want? Things are a lot more complicated than that. Democracy is not just the rule of the majority.

walrusgumble

basically phb rightly asks what about the minority. surely it cant be a simple and straight case of well we have a 51% majority so the other 49% can feck off. i do agree tht it appears that its the people who wish to remain in the uk after all it is only them (people in ni) who have the say.

but what you do or how do you address the minority (to show them that there conerns shall be addressed). you cant ignore them, by doing so it may be a case of a return to the old days.

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

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

I am well aware that's the case now. What I was refering to was where you said:

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.

and more specifically the fact you said Englishman as opposed to British and the fact it seemed to me you were referring to the time during "the Troubles".

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

Yes I'm well aware of this, just as I am sure you are aware that the majority of people on this island want reunification.

FrattonFred wrote:

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

Yes but as I said, it's still suport regardless of why. De Valera's signing of the book of condolences for Hitler is seen as support for Hitler by many regardless of why.

FrattonFred wrote:

What was the British government to do?

Well for a start they could not have shot dead 14 unarmed civil rights marchers or engaged in illegal torture. Remember those incidents were before the escalation of "the Troubles" to where the Provisional IRA were bombing England.

Or they could not have propped up a sectarian, authoritarian statelet that disillusioned what was a substantial minority to such an extent that they felt they had no choice but to take up arms.

Fratton wrote:

FredSay Alex Salmond declared he was goig to go on hunger strike if Scottish devolution doesn't happen immediately, even though only 48% of Scotlad wants it? how democratic is that?

As PHB and walrusgumble said, it's not that simple, not that black and white.
Does the majority have the right to do whatever it wants to the detriment of the minority?

csk

vesp wrote:

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

I don't think it was my best, but it looks to have been enough.

You make some good points vesp, but do not forget grievous wrongs were done by ALL sides including the British Government and as much as one side could be called terrorisrts then so could ALL sides be labelled such.

As regards occupation, you know full well that our government vesp and our Constitiution recognised that the de facto reality of partition and that meant that in essence a part of Ireland was under occupation.


Remember also vesp that I have not attempted to defend the indefensible, yet that is what you seem to want to do.

vesp

csk wrote:

You make some good points vesp, but do not forget grievous wrongs were done by ALL sides including the British Government and as much as one side could be called terrorisrts then so could ALL sides be labelled such..

I wrote that 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. I do not think the democratically elected government of our neighbour, which happens to be one of the seven biggest economies in the world, ( the fourth I read recently ) are terrorists. There may have been one or two bad apples here and there, but that is inevitable out of hundreds of thousands of security force members who served in N. Ireland. 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. What does that tell you? Also if talking about collusion, do not forget there can be and are many accusations of collusion between Irish security services and republicans.

csk wrote:

As regards occupation, you know full well that our government vesp and our Constitiution recognised that the de facto reality of partition and that meant that in essence a part of Ireland was under occupation..

So what ? Some African country can claim the Canary islands if they want - if they do not do so already. The Canaries are much much closer to Africa than to Spain. However the reality is the Canaries are Spanish. 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. In survey after survey the majority of people in N. Ireland want to stay part of the UK. Even 25% of Roman Catholics in N. Ireland want to remain part of the UK.

csk wrote:

Remember also vesp that I have not attempted to defend the indefensible, yet that is what you seem to want to do.

I do not defend the indefensible. You, however, seem to have a soft spot for the terrorists on one side. You may have been indoctrinated in to believing everyone should applaud the killers of Jean McColville, Garda McCabe, 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.
If you support those people who committed those atrocities you are indeed "defending the indefensible" if anyone is.

Fratton Fred

PHB wrote:

What about the other 48% though? Are they irrelevent? When they become 51% do they instantly get majority control, and can do anything they want? Things are a lot more complicated than that. Democracy is not just the rule of the majority.

No, of course they are not irrelevant, they are entitled to the protection of a govenment the same as any other citizen, but what is the answer?

In a democracy, you change things by being elected, taking your seta in government and lobying, not by throwing your toys out of the pram.

What about the BNP, do we give in to them? do we give in to Muslim terrorists who want Sharia (sp?) law implemented in the UK?

I don;t know what the answer is and I have yet to meet anyone who does. I have heard lots of name calling and people listing attorcities, but as yet no one has put forward a sensible solution.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Well for a start they could not have shot dead 14 unarmed civil rights marchers or engaged in illegal torture. Remember those incidents were before the escalation of "the Troubles" to where the Provisional IRA were bombing England.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you there, but that one act does not justify everything that has happened since. We can all real off attrocities but that is just point scoring and not constructive.

csk wrote:

Or they could not have propped up a sectarian, authoritarian statelet that disillusioned what was a substantial minority to such an extent that they felt they had no choice but to take up arms.

As PHB and walrusgumble said, it's not that simple, not that black and white.
Does the majority have the right to do whatever it wants to the detriment of the minority?

No, the Majority must follow the laws of the land and in Britain there are laws to prevent persecution beacuse of race, creed etc. but it's not laws and Government policy that is causing the division, it is people's additudes.

but what do they do? pull out completely and leave NI to it's own devices? that, I would suggest, would lead to unprecedented bloodshed.

There are lots of questions being asked, but no solutions being offered.

csk

FrattonFred wrote:

I don't think anyone will disagree with you there, but that one act does not justify everything that has happened since. We can all real off attrocities but that is just point scoring and not constructive.

Yes okay my answer was a bit glib but the point behind it is still valid that Westminster's response was heavy handed and ulitmately made things worse.

Fratton Fred wrote:

No, the Majority must follow the laws of the land and in Britain there are laws to prevent persecution beacuse of race, creed etc. but it's not laws and Government policy that is causing the division, it is people's additudes.

Yes it was peoples attitudes, but those attitudes in the north of Ireland were backed by the machinations of Government in Stormont and Stormont was propped up by Westminister.

FrattonFred wrote:

but what do they do? pull out completely and leave NI to it's own devices? that, I would suggest, would lead to unprecedented bloodshed.

Yes I agree of course it would have.

But if Terence O'Neill could realise in early 1969 that if things continued as they were then a sectarian bloodbath would ensue, then surely Westminster could see that also.

FrattonFred wrote:

There are lots of questions being asked, but no solutions being offered.

Westminster could have dropped the attitude that there was no real problem, that it was only an internal British problem.

The Irish Government sugested in the 1969 that a U.N. peace keeping force should be sent in. This was refused out of hand because the British Governement said it was nothing to do with the Irish Government, when the Irish Government tried to bring it up at U.N. level, Britain used it's veto and continued to claim it was an internal affair.

csk

vesp wrote:

I wrote that 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. I do not think the democratically elected government of our neighbour, which happens to be one of the seven biggest economies in the world, ( the fourth I read recently ) are terrorists. There may have been one or two bad apples here and there, but that is inevitable out of hundreds of thousands of security force members who served in N. Ireland. 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. What does that tell you? Also if talking about collusion, do not forget there can be and are many accusations of collusion between Irish security services and republicans.




So what ? Some African country can claim the Canary islands if they want - if they do not do so already. The Canaries are much much closer to Africa than to Spain. However the reality is the Canaries are Spanish. 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. In survey after survey the majority of people in N. Ireland want to stay part of the UK. Even 25% of Roman Catholics in N. Ireland want to remain part of the UK.

It's not just some African country though is it? It is our country, our constitution, a constitution endorsed by the overwhelming majority of Irish people. In fact the only Irish citizens who would not have recognised that constitution would have been members of all the various IRA's, which makes your statement kind of ironic when you think about it.

Vesp, it must grieve your heart awful sore to know that Irish people are now in charge of their own affairs and not ruled from Westminster anymore.
Seeing as you have shown your true colours I really don't see any need to continue our little tete-a-tete. Slán leat

guinnessdrinker

I dont know if its been mentioned before but in one of the housing estates in Sligo town, all the drives have been named after a public figure. Anyway one of them is named after Joe McDonnell, one of the other hunger strikers that died in 1981. He was from Belfast but ran in the general election for Sligo/Leitrim while on hunger strike and came within 600 votes of being elected to the Dail.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Westminster could have dropped the attitude that there was no real problem, that it was only an internal British problem.

The Irish Government sugested in the 1969 that a U.N. peace keeping force should be sent in. This was refused out of hand because the British Governement said it was nothing to do with the Irish Government, when the Irish Government tried to bring it up at U.N. level, Britain used it's veto and continued to claim it was an internal affair.

in hindsight (a glorious thing) maybe they were wrong to do so.

Would that have solved the problem though? The political divide would still have been there, but without the British Army's heavy handedness.

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

in hindsight (a glorious thing) maybe they were wrong to do so.

Would that have solved the problem though? The political divide would still have been there, but without the British Army's heavy handedness.

Probably not, especially as the political divide is still there.
But it might have saved lives on all sides and stopped a hell of alot of bitterness.

csk

guinnessdrinker wrote:

I dont know if its been mentioned before but in one of the housing estates in Sligo town, all the drives have been named after a public figure. Anyway one of them is named after Joe McDonnell, one of the other hunger strikers that died in 1981. He was from Belfast but ran in the general election for Sligo/Leitrim while on hunger strike and came within 600 votes of being elected to the Dail.

I didn't know that very interesting.

Would Sligo Town be very Republican or was it more a mood of the time sort of thing?

vesp

Fratton Fred wrote:

Would that have solved the problem though? The political divide would still have been there, but without the British Army's heavy handedness.

"heavy handedness" ? When the British army first went to N. Ireland during the troubles, they were welcomed with cups of tea and sandwiches in many catholic areas. Of course that was before some extremists started sniping at them and putting bombs in roadside trailers etc.
Personally, regarding " heavy handedness " of the British army - I never found them heavy handed at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I often visited N. Ireland during the troubles, and the security forces there were always very polite and professional to me, even though I was in a southern reg car, with a southern accent, and a southern driving licence. I know other friends and family who also found them courteous and helpful and polite and efficient. This despite the fact their lives were in danger 24 / 7, and many of their comrades having been killed and injured.

Fratton Fred

vesp wrote:

"heavy handedness" ? When the British army first went to N. Ireland during the troubles, they were welcomed with cups of tea and sandwiches in many catholic areas. Of course that was before some extremists started sniping at them and putting bombs in roadside trailers etc.
Personally, regarding " heavy handedness " of the British army - I never found them heavy handed at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I often visited N. Ireland during the troubles, and the security forces there were always very polite and professional to me, even though I was in a southern reg car, with a southern accent, and a southern driving licence. I know other friends and family who also found them courteous and helpful and polite and efficient. This despite the fact their lives were in danger 24 / 7, and many of their comrades having been killed and injured.

generally I'm sure you are right, but there are also certain instances where they were over the top, bloody sunday being the obvious example.

I have a relative who grew up in Cavan, very close to the border, and he laughs how, as a kid, they used to fire air guns at the squaddies at the check points. Then in the next sentences he would moan how the same squaddies treated everyone like dirt. He could never see the irony in his stetements!!

i do have sympathy for the British lads who are on duty up there though. One minute they are being abused and stoned by protestants because they are preventing them throwing petrol bombs at catholics, then the next minute they've got catholics shooting at them. Strange thing is, pretty much everyone of them I have spoken to love the Irish

walrusgumble

i do appreciate that fact that mant bitish soliders joined the army to be a solider and to serve their country (no different anywhere else) i do appreciate that many did not want to be in Northern ireland. I do appreciate that yes there lives were at risk at all times from both communities. (i am sure it be human nature to seek revenge i you witnessed your colleague been riddled with bullets) i am aware that in the early days these lads went out with and later married catholic girls (they intergrated)

but they were a shower of thugs at times (not like say like black n tans) you were very lucky go where threated well. any one know who dickie rock is?

well in the seventies, his band the miami mainlanders (not sure of name, a show band type) were stopped at a patrol, a bomb was planted by army and ruc, it went off, they get lined up (surprise suprise accidently they get mistaken for having arms) and at least 3 of the band members get killed.

vesp

Fratton Fred wrote:

generally I'm sure you are right, but there are also certain instances where they were over the top, bloody sunday being the obvious example.

As I said, there may have been one or two bad apples here and there, but that is inevitable out of hundreds of thousands of security force members who served in N. Ireland. Bloody Sunday was just one incident, and what really happened iduring that noisy demonstration is still debatable. 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.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I have a relative who grew up in Cavan, very close to the border, and he laughs how, as a kid, they used to fire air guns at the squaddies at the check points. Then in the next sentences he would moan how the same squaddies treated everyone like dirt. He could never see the irony in his stetements!!

I know people who gave lip to the security forces as well, told them they knew where they lived and they would get them etc etc.

Fratton Fred wrote:

i do have sympathy for the British lads who are on duty up there though. One minute they are being abused and stoned by protestants because they are preventing them throwing petrol bombs at catholics, !!

In fairness to protestants this did not happen very often, and most protestants - just like most catholics - were and are against violence.

Fratton Fred wrote:

then the next minute they've got catholics shooting at them. Strange thing is, pretty much everyone of them I have spoken to love the Irish

There were / still is an Irish presence in the security services. Hundreds of thousands of Irish people served in the British forces in the 20th century, and any I know say they were treated well there.

vesp

walrusgumble wrote:

i am aware that in the early days these lads went out with and later married catholic girls (they intergrated)

The republicans put paid to that when they tarred and feathered a few dozen local catholic girls for " collaborating " and fraternising " with the "enemy". When that did not work very well they decided to make an example of someone going to the aid of a dying soldier - by abducting Jean McColville.

Her bones were found uncovered by coastal erosion decades later in Louth, showing signs of torture.

Erin Go Brath

vesp wrote:

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 ?

Be under no illusions Sands and the hunger strikers had, and still have huge support around the world.

There are memorials in Hartford Conneticut at Bobby Sands circle, and Havana Cuba.

Apart from the Street in Tehran, the French cities of Nantes, Le Mans, and St Denis also have streets named after Bobby Sands.

Paris, Berlin, Lisbon, Oslo, Milan and many other cities around Europe had solidarity Marches for Bobby and the 10 hunger strikers in 1981.

The British Government, and Margaret Thatcher were widely condemned throughout the world for their role in letting the Hunger Strikers die. The Hindustan times, the Hong Kong Standard, and the former Soviet Union paper Pravda are just some of the newspapers around the world that condemned Margaret Thatchers actions.

There will someday be a memorial in his own country. A monument in O Connell Street, Dublin would be fitting I believe.


Anybody who is quick to judge Bobby Sands should realise that Bobby was jailed by a judge sitting alone, a judge who even admitted that the police had produced no evidence to tie him to the bombs that he was accused of planting. Anybody familiar with the Magna Carta (an English document), might know that Article 39 says "No free person shall be jailed without a jury of his peers". Ironic, then that it was England who ignored it in its fight against the IRA.

vesp

Erin Go Brath wrote:

There are memorials in Hartford Conneticut at Bobby Sands circle, and Havana Cuba.
Apart from the Street in Tehran, the French cities of Nantes, Le Mans, and St Denis also have streets named after Bobby Sands.

links please. Anyway if someone calls the lane behind someones back garden whatever....who cares less.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Paris, Berlin, Lisbon, Oslo, Milan and many other cities around Europe had solidarity Marches for Bobby and the 10 hunger strikers in 1981.

Ye mean a couple of dozen Irish people in those cities lol ( oh and the associated few left winger hanger ons and anarchists etc ). Who cares.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The British Government, and Margaret Thatcher were widely condemned throughout the world for their role in letting the Hunger Strikers die. .

Rubbish. Everyone knew the only people who let the hunger strikers die was the republican propoganda machine. The British Government did not want them to die and would have fed them for free, but they refused.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The Hindustan times, the Hong Kong Standard, and the former Soviet Union paper Pravda are just some of the newspapers around the world that condemned Margaret Thatchers actions.
.

lol You forgot some journalist in the Boston Globe also ... I used to read the "The Hindustan times" every week but must have missed it.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Anybody who is quick to judge Bobby Sands should realise that Bobby was jailed by a judge sitting alone, a judge who even admitted that the police had produced no evidence to tie him to the bombs that he was accused of planting. Anybody familiar with the Magna Carta (an English document), might know that Article 39 says "No free person shall be jailed without a jury of his peers". Ironic, then that it was England who ignored it in its fight against the IRA.

Maybe if the IRA had not interfered in the legal process by intimidating jurys and killing judges etc then we could have had more normality on this island.
As regards the IRA men imprisoned, next thing you will say is that none of them were responsible for the many murders and bombings etc committed in those decades ?

Erin Go Brath

vesp wrote:

Ye mean a couple of dozen Irish people in those cities lol ( oh and the associated few left winger hanger ons and anarchists etc ). Who cares.

Actually thousands in some of these parades. Many of them ordinary people, who were moved/outraged by the tragic events.

vesp wrote:

Rubbish. Everyone knew the only people who let the hunger strikers die was the republican propoganda machine. The British Government did not want them to die and would have fed them for free, but they refused.

Incorrect. Margaret Thatcher was very much prepared to see the hunger strikers die. She could easily have given in the strikers very modest demands, but instead choose to be stubborn and let 10 men die.

vesp wrote:

lol You forgot some journalist in the Boston Globe also ... I used to read the "The Hindustan times" every week but must have missed it.

Just pointing out the Global view on these events. Seeing that you think only one man and his dog cared a whit about what happened.

vesp wrote:

As regards the IRA men imprisoned, next thing you will say is that none of them were responsible for the many murders and bombings etc committed in those decades ?

The imprisoned men were political prisoners of war. Many of them imprisoned without due process been adhered to. The Birmingham 6, Guilford 4 and many other Irish men and women have fell foul of Britains, so called justice system through the years. Bobby Sands was just 1 in a long line.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The imprisoned men were political prisoners of war. Many of them imprisoned without due process been adhered to. The Birmingham 6, Guilford 4 and many other Irish men and women have fell foul of Britains, so called justice system through the years. Bobby Sands was just 1 in a long line.

aahh right, so not only was Bobby Sands a hero, he was an innocent man. I've not heard tha one before.

you forget that, in the case of the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4, there was also at least one other person who was prepared to see them in prison, the person that carried ot those attrocities.

Innocent people were killed and maimed and no one has been brought to justice for it. If Sinn Fein and the PIRA were so concerned about the welfare of the 10 people incorrectly convicted, why did they not offer forward the real culprit, or is it just another case of the IRA hiding behind innocent people?

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

aahh right, so not only was Bobby Sands a hero, he was an innocent man. I've not heard tha one before.

Bobby Sands is a hero to many people around the world. He showed courage, honour and dignity in his actions. Bobby was convicted as I've stated earlier by a lone judge who even admitted that there was no evidence linking him to the crime. This, and I'll repeat myself: goes against article 39 of Britains Magna Carta which states "No free person shall be convicted without a jury of his peers". The UK justice system once again shows its integrity :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred wrote:

Innocent people were killed and maimed and no one has been brought to justice for it. If Sinn Fein and the PIRA were so concerned about the welfare of the 10 people incorrectly convicted, why did they not offer forward the real culprit, or is it just another case of the IRA hiding behind innocent people

I'm not arguing that there havent been people who've commited terrible atrocities in the name of Irish Nationalism. It is however only a drop in the ocean compared to the atrocities commited by Imperialist Britain throughout the ages, and are still commiting today in Iraq. All the IRA ever wanted was their own country to be free, greedy Britain on the other hand travelled the world trying to conquer everywhere they could, ignoring the wishes of the natives, just so they could expand the empire.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Bobby Sands is a hero to many people around the world. He showed courage, honour and dignity in his actions. Bobby was convicted as I've stated earlier by a lone judge who even admitted that there was no evidence linking him to the crime. This, and I'll repeat myself: goes against article 39 of Britains Magna Carta which states "No free person shall be convicted without a jury of his peers". The UK justice system once again shows its integrity :rolleyes:



I'm not arguing that there havent been people who've commited terrible atrocities in the name of Irish Nationalism. It is however only a drop in the ocean compared to the atrocities commited by Imperialist Britain throughout the ages, and are still commiting today in Iraq. All the IRA ever wanted was their own country to be free, greedy Britain on the other hand travelled the world trying to conquer everywhere they could, ignoring the wishes of the natives, just so they could expand the empire.

Then why wasn’t there a big demonstration proclaiming he was innocent? Oh yeah, he wasn’t.

Britain was one of the conquering powers of the last few centuries; you can’t take that in the same context as this. If you were comparing French, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, Portugese imperialism, then fine, but this is an entirely different context.

I have said before, point scoring is not exactly constructive and we can stand here all day and real off atrocity after atrocity (remind me, how did St Patrick first come to Ireland?). I would suggest, however you take off your anti British glasses for two minutes and try and think for yourself, not what An phoblacht tells you to think.

Having such rabidly anti British views could be misconstrued for bigotry.

boneless

So much Fisking in a thread... I think it's about time it was locked. It has gone way off topic...

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

I would suggest, however you take off your anti British glasses for two minutes and try and think for yourself, not what An phoblacht tells you to think.

Having such rabidly anti British views could be misconstrued for bigotry.

1) I dont read An phoblacht.

2) I've got a number of British friends, and am certainly not anti-british. I'm just telling it like it is.

vesp

Erin Go Brath wrote:

1) I dont read An phoblacht.

Where did you get your anti-British attitudes so ? Did you ever actually hold a copy, let alone read the papers you quoted from a few posts back ? ( The Hindustan times, the Hong Kong Standard, and the former Soviet Union paper Pravda )? Or did someone just tell you that someone in one issue of each of these three papers wrote something in favour of Bobby Sands ....and you believe there was widespread support for Bobby Sands and other IRA men around the world ?

Erin Go Brath wrote:

2) I've got a number of British friends, and am certainly not anti-british.

You have friends from "Imperialist Britain" as you call it ? I for one also think your views could be misconstrued for bigotry.

guinnessdrinker

Hey guys,

Here's some interesting pictures from 1981.

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Portugal.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Oslo.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Paris.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Australia.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/New-Zealand.jpg

And also the street in Iran...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/aa/Bobby_sands_street.jpg

walrusgumble

but to be fair we could say the same about you calling 1916 rebels as terriorist (from 800 years post)

was nelson mandela who spend much of his time in prison for his beliefs a terriorist/treasonist?