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

mountainyman

The dead hand of the hunger strikers delayed any possibility of a compromise by the IRA for 10 years. Bobby Sands (at the time of his death) would not have supported the current peace process and his death delayed it.

The current process required an IRA surrender.

MM

csk

mountainyman wrote:

All of these were British subjects and entitled to British passports. Only St John Burgess lived to become an Irish citizen.

MM

That was precisely the point I was making.

K-9

mountainyman wrote:

The dead hand of the hunger strikers delayed any possibility of a compromise by the IRA for 10 years. Bobby Sands (at the time of his death) would not have supported the current peace process and his death delayed it.

The current process required an IRA surrender.

MM

Of course not, at the time he did not support it as there was no process at the time. Many of the people involved then now support the process. Paisley wasn't actually a great believer in the current peace process until recently.

An IRA surrender! Back to the win/loss mentality.

K-9

mountainyman wrote:

All of these were British subjects and entitled to British passports. Only St John Burgess lived to become an Irish citizen.

MM

Kind of explains how much they thought of being British citizens.

Shutuplaura

mountainyman wrote:

The dead hand of the hunger strikers delayed any possibility of a compromise by the IRA for 10 years. Bobby Sands (at the time of his death) would not have supported the current peace process and his death delayed it.

The current process required an IRA surrender.

MM

If it delayed the possibility of compramise for 10 years why did it take until 1997 for a lasting ceasfire to be decalred? Why also, was the 1994 ceasfire abandoned? The IRA didn't win any "war" but they could hardly be accused of loosing one. If they did then why did people have to wait so long for them to voluntarily decommission.

The dead hand of the hunger strikers gave the movement a shot in the arm politically and forced the IRA leadership to accept that their aims could be achieved with a tandem political process. SF were never pushed to the sidelines of the movement again.

mountainyman

Shutuplaura wrote:

If it delayed the possibility of compramise for 10 years why did it take until 1997 for a lasting ceasfire to be decalred? Why also, was the 1994 ceasfire abandoned? The IRA didn't win any "war" but they could hardly be accused of loosing one. If they did then why did people have to wait so long for them to voluntarily decommission.

The dead hand of the hunger strikers gave the movement a shot in the arm politically and forced the IRA leadership to accept that their aims could be achieved with a tandem political process. SF were never pushed to the sidelines of the movement again.

The IRA lost get over it.

The aims in the early part of the struggle involved British withdrawal. The British did not withdraw. The IRA lost.

The whole armed struggle was pointless. It is a pity that it took the IRA 30 years to surrender. They should have surrendered in 1972.

MM

Shutuplaura

On the republican side the success of the H-Block/hunger strike political campaign pointed an alternative way forward than the long war. The process is still ongoing and led to the peace process. How successful or not I dunno, I'm not a fortune teller but the republican leadership seem to believe that they can achieve their means without the armalite.

Perhaps they should have continued the "war" to avoid showing weakness to mountainyman

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

On the republican side the success of the H-Block/hunger strike political campaign pointed an alternative way forward than the long war. The process is still ongoing and led to the peace process. How successful or not I dunno, I'm not a fortune teller but the republican leadership seem to believe that they can achieve their means without the armalite.

I haven't much faith in the future of the so-called peace process, simply because in my humble opinion it is based on a false premise. The premise being that if republicans give up violence then SF get a leg in the door of government north and south and then deliver a united Ireland. While the first half is achievable God help us, the second isn't within any realistic time frame. Those who are attached to physical force won't be happy with that.

Shutuplaura

"I haven't much faith in the future of the so-called peace process, simply because in my humble opinion it is based on a false premise. The premise being that if republicans give up violence then SF get a leg in the door of government north and south and then deliver a united Ireland. While the first half is achievable God help us, the second isn't within any realistic time frame. Those who are attached to physical force won't be happy with that"

I dunno what the republican political strategy is and I have to agree in saying that I'm not sure how they expect to achieve their aims. However, the IRA has decommissioned their weapons, surrendered even if you must and the British army is disengaging from the north:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0331/north.html

Also, institutiional discrimination has been eliminated making the north a fair society. This make physical forcers seem more like the crackpots they are and unlikely to be able to start anything.

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

However, the IRA has decommissioned their weapons, surrendered even if you must and the British army is disengaging from the north:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0331/north.html

Also, institutiional discrimination has been eliminated making the north a fair society. This make physical forcers seem more like the crackpots they are and unlikely to be able to start anything.

The deciommissioned arms wouldn't be hard to replace.

The BA was only engaged in the north to counter the violence and will have to re-engage if there is a resumption of violence.

Terrorists aren't interested in fair societies being inherently unfair themselves.

Was there ever any question that the whole lot from Paisley and Adams down to the triggermen and women are crackpots.

Shutuplaura

Mick86 wrote:

The deciommissioned arms wouldn't be hard to replace.

The BA was only engaged in the north to counter the violence and will have to re-engage if there is a resumption of violence.

Terrorists aren't interested in fair societies being inherently unfair themselves.

Was there ever any question that the whole lot from Paisley and Adams down to the triggermen and women are crackpots.

Arms are expensive and funds wouldn't be forthcoming from the irish-american lobby in this post 9/11 world. Smuggling arms is also quite difficult - hence the large republican mythology surrounding arms smugglers.

Regarding terrorists interest in fair society, not knowing any i can't comment but the modern troubles grew out of the pressures placed on northern society during the 1960's civil rights campaign and the northern governments reaction to that. Some believe that there was a conscious effort on the part of republicans to link their struggle to the more popular one political equality Their previous campaign in the 1950's failed because public opinion was against them and the local population was seen as uninvolved.

Your last question - You wanna start the tread for that?!

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

Arms are expensive and funds wouldn't be forthcoming from the irish-american lobby in this post 9/11 world. Smuggling arms is also quite difficult - hence the large republican mythology surrounding arms smugglers.

You must be joking on both points here. The local hoodlums in Limerick, Dublin and even in Clonmel have military type firearms. How difficult do you think it would be for the IRA to rearm. There's also the possibility that they haven't actually decommissioned all their weapons.

I doubt that your average American would even make a link between terrorism and the IRA.

Shutuplaura wrote:

Regarding terrorists interest in fair society, not knowing any i can't comment

Thats pathetic.

ronanp

Perhaps the most shocking thing amongst all the glaring errors and incorrect claims and counter-claims on this thread is that not one person seems to have grasped the meaning of the word 'bigot'.

Fratton Fred

ronanp wrote:

Perhaps the most shocking thing amongst all the glaring errors and incorrect claims and counter-claims on this thread is that not one person seems to have grasped the meaning of the word 'bigot'.

I have, I was called it enough so I looked it up

ronanp

Fratton Fred wrote:

I have, I was called it enough so I looked it up

What i should have said was that nobody who's called someone a bigot seems to understand the word!

Shutuplaura

Mick86 wrote:

I doubt that your average American would even make a link between terrorism and the IRA.

I've heard anecdotally that this isn't the case. As its speculation I'll leave it like that.

Mick86 wrote:

You must be joking on both points here. The local hoodlums in Limerick, Dublin and even in Clonmel have military type firearms. How difficult do you think it would be for the IRA to rearm. There's also the possibility that they haven't actually decommissioned all their weapons.

Limerick street gangs are not quite as heavily armed as the IRA ever was! Its still not armalite's at dawn up in the 'mel either. Eoin Cahill was killed with a shotgun - are they still army issue?

Mick86 wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shutuplaura
Regarding terrorists interest in fair society, not knowing any i can't comment


Thats pathetic.

Now Mick, name calling isn't cool.

Shutuplaura

ronanp wrote:

What i should have said was that nobody who's called someone a bigot seems to understand the word!

Throwing poorly written and inaccurate facts my fellow bigots is the only reason I come here.

philologos

brianthebard wrote:

What did Bobby Sands do for this country? any idiot can starve themselves to death. Just because he felt it was for a "cause" doesn't mean his actions were worthy of having a street named after him or any number of other honours that some people may wish to posthumously give him.

Here, here!! I don't see anything heroic about starving yourself to death. Nothing politically came out of it, if I am wrong please correct me?

Zambia

Jakkass wrote:

Here, here!! I don't see anything heroic about starving yourself to death. Nothing politically came out of it, if I am wrong please correct me?

While not calling him a hero he did however believe in something so much he was willing to die a in not a nice way to achieve it. I have to respect him for that despite the actions which lead him to prison.

However a street , thats a bit OTT IMHO...

philologos

Zambia232 wrote:

While not calling him a hero he did however believe in something so much he was willing to die a in not a nice way to achieve it. I have to respect him for that despite the actions which lead him to prison.
However a street , thats a bit OTT IMHO...

Realistically now, I don't think starving one's self is any way to gain respect. If this wasn't about republicanism and if it was about something else, he'd be considered a nutter.

Zambia

Jakkass wrote:

Realistically now, I don't think starving one's self is any way to gain respect. If this wasn't about republicanism and if it was about something else, he'd be considered a nutter.

Well I am not revering the bloke but he believed in something and he stuck by it.

Erin Go Brath

Jakkass wrote:

Realistically now, I don't think starving one's self is any way to gain respect. If this wasn't about republicanism and if it was about something else, he'd be considered a nutter.

I'd have to disagree. If you read back to earlier in this thread you'll see one of the posters outlining the reasons behind hunger striking; and how its been an ancient Irish tradition to gain concessions from your enemy by shaming them.

Personally, I think its a brave and selfless act. The ultimate sacrifice. Not many people have the courage of their convictions to put themselves though this, and also to see it through to the end. Whether you agree or not with the 10 hunger strikes sacrificing their lives for the cause, they certainly have gained respect in many quarters for their brave actions. This was reflected in various solidarity marches around the world.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Personally, I think its a brave and selfless act. The ultimate sacrifice. Not many people have the courage of their convictions to put themselves though this, and also to see it through to the end. Whether you agree or not with the 10 hunger strikes sacrificing their lives for the cause, they certainly have gained respect in many quarters for their brave actions. This was reflected in various solidarity marches around the world.

here we go again.

exactly the same could be said for the 9/11 or 7/7 bombers, or anyone who gives up their life for their "cause". Doesn't make it right.

Dead heroes are less useful than live ones.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

here we go again.

Fratton Fred wrote:

exactly the same could be said for the 9/11 or 7/7 bombers, or anyone who gives up their life for their "cause". Doesn't make it right.

Dead heroes are less useful than live ones.

I'll have to make this distinction though. Someone taking their own life on hunger-strike is completely different from someone driving a plane into a building taking hundreds of people with them.

Also dead heores can be more useful for a cause than live ones imo. The 10 hunger strikers will be remembered forever, and the cause highlighted to an audience that would never have known about it otherwise.

Zambia

Its a slow day I reckon this could use a side thread

brianthebard

Erin Go Brath wrote:

I'd have to disagree. If you read back to earlier in this thread you'll see one of the posters outlining the reasons behind hunger striking; and how its been an ancient Irish tradition to gain concessions from your enemy by shaming them.

Are you referring to satire?? Ancient Irish tradition-you mean pre 500ad?
The use of hunger strikes is not just an Irish phenomenon its been used by
several people for political motives. Bobby Sands et al are not unique in this.

Mick86

Shutuplaura wrote:

Limerick street gangs are not quite as heavily armed as the IRA ever was! Its still not armalite's at dawn up in the 'mel either. Eoin Cahill was killed with a shotgun - are they still army issue? .

They still have military type automatic pistols and sub-machine guns. John Cramer was arrested in Clonmel bus station a few years ago in possession of a 9mm auto, a silencer and 100 rounds of ammo.

Shutuplaura wrote:

Now Mick, name calling isn't cool.

Thats not name calling. It's merely commenting on the fact that you ducked the terrorism question.

Zambia232 wrote:

Well I am not revering the bloke but he believed in something and he stuck by it.

So did the Warrington bomber. He killed two kids which is bad PR so nobody will be naming a street after him. Well maybe a little side street in some out of the way place but nothing major.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

....The 10 hunger strikers will be remembered forever, and the cause highlighted to an audience that would never have known about it otherwise.

Of course they will which is why the title of this thread includes the other nine suicides. I would say that outside of republicanism Bobby Sands and his cohorts are fading into history, which is probably why the Shinners want to raise their profile a bit.

csk

brianthebard wrote:

Are you referring to satire?? Ancient Irish tradition-you mean pre 500ad?
The use of hunger strikes is not just an Irish phenomenon its been used by
several people for political motives. Bobby Sands et al are not unique in this.

Who said the Hungerstrikers were unique?

Yes many people have used hungerstrikes, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela apparently used it at one time or another. It's a powerful protest, surely your not trying to deny that?

brianthebard

csk wrote:

Who said the Hungerstrikers were unique?

Yes many people have used hungerstrikes, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela apparently used it at one time or another. It's a powerful protest, surely your not trying to deny that?

Not denying anything, EgB seemed to think that it was a particularly Irish form of protest and I just wanted her to clear up her position.

csk

brianthebard wrote:

Not denying anything, EgB seemed to think that it was a particularly Irish form of protest and I just wanted her to clear up her position.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Funny that's not what I got from reading the post.

If the point was not to deny anything, is the point just to be disingenuous?