What did Bobby Sands die for?

KeithAFC · 31-12-2010 2:18am #1

An interesting one this is because as far as i know, he wanted political status.

the right not to wear a prison uniform;
the right not to do prison work;
the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
the right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
full restoration of remission lost through the protest

Obviously being a Unionist, i don't remember his passing or anything of the sort it but it seems many people think of him as a hero but was it worth it?

Was it really worth it to starve yourself to death to prove a point?

chucken1 · 31-12-2010 2:23am

Keith, Im not getting into this discussion,but you being too young is why you dont remember Bobby Sands.

Its nothing to do with you being a unionist.

Einhard · 31-12-2010 2:26am

This is going to end well...

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 2:29am

Bobby Sands wanted to be treated as what he was, a political prisoner, a prisoner of war. He had the courage and conviction to stick to his principles to the very end, backed all the way by his peers and the people. He was prepared to die, and ultimately did, for what he believed in.

"They have nothing in their whole imperial arsenal that can break the spirit of one Irishman who doesn't want to be broken.

They won't break me because the desire for freedom, and the freedom of the Irish people, is in my heart. The day will dawn when all the people of Ireland will have the desire for freedom to show. It is then that we will see the rising of the moon.

We must see our present fight right through to the very end."

-Bobby Sands, MP

Bobby Sands was no criminal. He was a hero.

Einhard · 31-12-2010 2:30am

TheProdigy wrote: »

I suppose you could ask that cúnt Thatcher was it worth 10 lives to refuse the above?

Thatcher didn't kill the hunger strikers.

KeithAFC · 31-12-2010 2:30am

TheProdigy wrote: »

I suppose you could ask that cúnt Thatcher was it worth 10 lives to refuse the above?

Was it worth it though? I agree, you could ask Thatcher the same question but do most Irish people think it was worth it? I know some Loyalists actually supported him and he was obviously very brave in that regard.

Einhard · 31-12-2010 2:33am

KeithAFC wrote: »

Was it worth it though?

I don't really thinka nyone could answer that, except the man himself, and perhaps his family. He obviously thought it was, and so, in that respect, it was.

Athlone_Bhoy · 31-12-2010 2:39am

KeithAFC wrote: »

Was it worth it though? I agree, you could ask Thatcher the same question but do most Irish people think it was worth it? I know some Loyalists actually supported him and he was obviously very brave in that regard.

Not only just Sands but 9 more after him not to mention the number on the protest.

Are we finaling turning you KeithAFC?

TheProdigy · 31-12-2010 2:39am

Einhard wrote: »

Thatcher didn't kill the hunger strikers.

That is dependant on what context you perceive the situation, had she accepted their political status they wouldn't have died so she was indeed the fundamental aspect which contributed to their deaths. From that view you could argue she did kill them essentially.

KeithAFC · 31-12-2010 2:41am

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

Not only just Sands but 9 more after him not to mention the number on the protest.

Are we finaling turning you KeithAFC?

No. Im just curious as to what the general view of his death is on here.

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 2:44am

Obviously being a Unionist, i don't remember his passing or anything of the sort it but it seems many people think of him as a hero but was it worth it?

Keith, I honestly don't know how you couldn't if you where alive at the time.

KeithAFC · 31-12-2010 2:48am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Keith, I honestly don't know how you couldn't if you where alive at the time.

No, i meant by going to ceremonies etc.

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 2:49am

Fair enough, pretty sure I am not the only one who picked it up that way.

Stheno · 31-12-2010 2:49am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Keith, I honestly don't know how you couldn't if you where alive at the time.

I was eight at the time and don't remember it much despite growing up across from Portlaoise Prison.

chucken1 · 31-12-2010 2:52am

KeithAFC wrote: »

An interesting one this is because as far as i know, he wanted political status.
the right not to wear a prison uniform;

the right not to do prison work;

the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;

the right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;

full restoration of remission lost through the protest

Obviously being a Unionist, i don't remember his passing or anything of the sort it but it seems many people think of him as a hero but was it worth it?

Was it really worth it to starve yourself to death to prove a point?[/QUOTE]

I said I would'nt get into the discussion..but Keith..Do you know what that point was?

Pauleta · 31-12-2010 2:54am

He threw a tantrum because they wanted new clothes

Einhard · 31-12-2010 2:55am

TheProdigy wrote: »

That is dependant on what context you perceive the situation, had she accepted their political status they wouldn't have died so she was indeed the fundamental aspect which contributed to their deaths. From that view you could argue she did kill them essentially.

You could apply that principle to any prisoner who dies on hungerstrike in an attempt to gain what he wants, and especially to any would-be political prisoner who does the same. Had the Bieder-Meinhof Gang or the Red Brigades made such demands under such circumstances of the German and Italian governments respectively, would you similarly accuse those administrations of being responsible for their deaths? I don't believe that any paramilitary group in the North should have been treated as political prisoners, and so I can't condemn Thatcher for refusing it to the hunger strikers.

Incidentally, wasn't there reposts recently that the deaths could have been avoided, but that the IRA leadership stmied talks which might have brought about a compromise, in order to score a propoganda victory?

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 2:57am

Pauleta wrote: »

He threw a tantrum because they wanted new clothes

Thats an AH answer, I don't think anyone could seriously condense it to that tbf.

If that is your understanding of the situation...... oh dear.

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 2:59am

Einhard wrote: »

You could apply that principle to any prisoner who dies on hungerstrike in an attempt to gain what he wants, and especially to any would-be political prisoner who does the same. Had the Bieder-Meinhof Gang or the Red Brigades made such demands under such circumstances of the German and Italian governments respectively, would you similarly accuse those administrations of being responsible for their deaths? I don't believe that any paramilitary group in the North should have been treated as political prisoners, and so I can't condemn Thatcher for refusing it to the hunger strikers.

Incidentally, wasn't there reposts recently that the deaths could have been avoided, but that the IRA leadership stmied talks which might have brought about a compromise, in order to score a propoganda victory?

In fairness, Bobby Sands was no ordinary prisoner, he was elected as an MP while in jail. He was clearly a political prisoner.

It was a bad move by Thatcher from both sides tbh, what good came of it from a British/Unionist pov?

KeithAFC · 31-12-2010 3:01am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

In fairness, Bobby Sands was no ordinary prisoner, he was elected as an MP while in jail. He was clearly a political prisoner.

It was a bad move by Thatcher from both sides tbh, what good came of it from a British/Unionist pov?

David Ervine said it set a chance of peace back for 10-15 years or more.

Einhard · 31-12-2010 3:08am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

In fairness, Bobby Sands was no ordinary prisoner, he was elected as an MP while in jail. He was clearly a political prisoner.

Being elected an MP shouldn't make one above the law though. Geoffrey Archer was an MP!

It was a bad move by Thatcher from both sides tbh, what good came of it from a British/Unionist pov?

Perhaps she should have adopted a more conciliatory stance from a politican POV, but that would be to her credit, and fact that she didn't, IMO, isn't something that can be used against her. Bobby Sands was aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation which murdered and inflicted horrific injuries on women and children. You may think him a hero, I don't. I don't care what his political allegiances, he was a criminal for doing so. And he deserved to be treated like one.

chucken1 · 31-12-2010 3:09am

KeithAFC wrote: »

David Ervine said it set a chance of peace back for 10-15 years or more.

What did? The fact that he was an elected rep or that he died?

RichieC · 31-12-2010 3:12am

chucken1 wrote: »

Me?
Whats the problem?

Oh, gods, no, I meant the OP

chucken1 · 31-12-2010 3:13am

RichieC wrote: »

Oh, gods, no, I meant the OP

Well you got that wrong too so.

TheProdigy · 31-12-2010 3:15am

Einhard wrote: »

You could apply that principle to any prisoner who dies on hungerstrike in an attempt to gain what he wants, and especially to any would-be political prisoner who does the same. Had the Bieder-Meinhof Gang or the Red Brigades made such demands under such circumstances of the German and Italian governments respectively, would you similarly accuse those administrations of being responsible for their deaths? I don't believe that any paramilitary group in the North should have been treated as political prisoners, and so I can't condemn Thatcher for refusing it to the hunger strikers.

Incidentally, wasn't there reposts recently that the deaths could have been avoided, but that the IRA leadership stmied talks which might have brought about a compromise, in order to score a propoganda victory?

As I said it depends on what perception one has obtained from the circumstances which unfolded, your view is not in collaboration with mine so arguing over the responsibility of the deaths will not result in any agreement from either of us.

In relation to other organisations such as the Red Brigades I'm sure followers or such would have viewed the Italian government responsible had such 'demands' (or moral rights as some would think) been orchestrated and not granted. Again some would believe they weren't responsible so as previously mentioned it all depends on how somebody concludes a view about events.

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 3:16am

Einhard wrote: »

Being elected an MP shouldn't make one above the law though. Geoffrey Archer was an MP!

Was he elected because of his crimes?

Everyone knew of Bobby Sands "crimes" and voted for him because of them, they were not seen as a negative.

Perhaps she should have adopted a more conciliatory stance from a politican POV, but that would be to her credit, and fact that she didn't, IMO, isn't something that can be used against her. Bobby Sands was aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation which murdered and inflicted horrific injuries on women and children. You may think him a hero, I don't. I don't care what his political allegiances, he was a criminal for doing so. And he deserved to be treated like one.

I dont think there is a "perhaps" about it. It can be used against her, from a Unionist prospective she let the troubles be reignited and led to a huge upsurge in IRA membership. She made a bags of it, no two ways about it.

Even the Pope warned her about the consequences from a hungerstrike:

Pope John Paul II had hunger strikers concern
The Pope wrote to Margaret Thatcher about his "deep" concerns for republican inmates on hunger strike in the Maze Prison, previously secret papers have showed.

Pope John Paul II urged the former prime minister to "consider personally" solutions to the crisis in which seven IRA inmates deliberately starved themselves at the notorious Northern Ireland jail in the hope of winning prisoner-of-war status.

The personal message from John Paul II reads: "I am receiving disturbing news about the tension in the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland, where a number of prisoners have begun a hunger strike."

He continued: "I am aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr Atkins, has already been asked to examine the problem and to seek possible solutions.

"In the spirit of the call for peace and reconciliation which I made at Drogheda during my pastoral visit to Ireland last year, I would express my deep concern about the tragic consequences which the agitation could have for the prisoners themselves and also the possible grave repercussions upon the whole situation in Northern Ireland.

"I would ask you to consider personally possible solutions in order to avoid irreversible consequences that could perhaps prove irreparable."

The letter was made public as part of a release of previously secret Government papers from 1980 held by the National Archives in Kew, London.

The origins of the protest lay in the 1976 decision by the British Government to treat newly convicted IRA prisoners as ordinary criminals rather than political prisoners.

The removal of "special category" status was extended to all paramilitary prisoners in March 1980.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/pope-john-paul-ii-had-hunger-strikers-concern-15042051.html#ixzz19bjlIRvg

Einhard · 31-12-2010 3:37am

TheProdigy wrote: »

In relation to other organisations such as the Red Brigades I'm sure followers or such would have viewed the Italian government responsible had such 'demands' (or moral rights as some would think) been orchestrated and not granted. Again some would believe they weren't responsible so as previously mentioned it all depends on how somebody concludes a view about events.

That seems like an argument for moral relativism to me. I happen to believe that some actions are always wrong, no matter the principle behind them. The deliberate and senseless murder of civilians being one of them for example. As I said, Sands abetted such murders, and thus should not be have been treated as a political prisoner, let alone a hero.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Was he elected because of his crimes?

Fair point. But achieving a democratic mandate should not be conflated with having a moral mandate. Many people here consider George Bush and Tony Blair to be war criminals, yet both were re-elected to their respective positions after they invaded Iraq.

Everyone knew of Bobby Sands "crimes" and voted for him because of them, they were not seen as a negative.

And equally, Loyalist massacres of Catholics were not seen in the negative by many Loyalists. That must make them legitimate murders too right?

I dont think there is a "perhaps" about it. It can be used against her, from a Unionist prospective she let the troubles be reignited and led to a huge upsurge in IRA membership. She made a bags of it, no two ways about it.

Sometimes one has to take a stand on principle. The British state was being blackmailed by men who sought to murder the citizens of that state. If I had been in her position, I would have done the exact same thing. She didn't kill Sands or the others; they made that choice themselves.

Even the Pope warned her about the consequences from a hungerstrike:

Oh well, why didn't you say so? If the pope was against the policy, then surely it must have been the wrong one. Afterall, the papacy is infallible...

hotmail.com · 31-12-2010 3:41am

Stheno wrote: »

I was eight at the time and don't remember it much despite growing up across from Portlaoise Prison.

And does this normally give you an advantage on the history of prisons?

I don't thinki it achieved anything, 10 men died, in an elaborate publicity stunt that got out of control.

All it did was increase IRA numbers.

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 3:44am

Einhard wrote: »

Fair point. But achieving a democratic mandate should not be conflated with having a moral mandate. Many people here consider George Bush and Tony Blair to be war criminals, yet both were re-elected to their respective positions after they invaded Iraq.

Did people vote for them because of their "war crimes" or in spite of them? I think it was mainly the latter.

And equally, Loyalist massacres of Catholics were not seen in the negative by many Loyalists. That must make them legitimate murders too right?

I think it boils down to whether or not you think it was a war or not. I think many loyalists also wanted political status. I think they are who Keith referred to earlier.

Sometimes one has to take a stand on principle. The British state was being blackmailed by men who sought to murder the citizens of that state. If I had been in her position, I would have done the exact same thing. She didn't kill Sands or the others; they made that choice themselves.

But the Brits caved in on all the demands except one I believe.

Oh well, why didn't you say so? If the pope was against the policy, then surely it must have been the wrong one. Afterall, the papacy is infallible...

The point I was making was that if someone as blinkered and backward as the Pope could see what would happen....

seiphil · 31-12-2010 7:51am

My view only on this but I believe that the Death of Bobby Sands and the 9 other hungerstrikers was worth it.

Its a mirror image of what Connolly and Pearse did in 1916. They knew that they could and would not defeat the British forces in Ireland but they believed that it would ignite a fire in Republican's bellies and thats what it did.

Likewise with what happened after the hungerstrikers died.

The Rook · 31-12-2010 8:13am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Bobby Sands wanted to be treated as what he was, a political prisoner, a prisoner of war.

Bobby Sands was no criminal. He was a hero.

While you're by all means entitles to your opinion I don't agree, he was a criminal, a terrorist, targeting innocent men, women and children, not a political prisoner. I know he's revered etc in some circles, but thankfully I'm not a member of any of those circles

I have family who fought in 1916 (for the Republic before anyone asks!) so I'm definitely not pro British/ Unionist, but Bobby Sands, just a terrorist in my honest opinion, and again that's something I'm entitled to!

seiphil · 31-12-2010 8:22am

The Rook wrote: »

While you're by all means entitles to your opinion I don't agree, he was a criminal, a terrorist, targeting innocent men, women and children, not a political prisoner. I know he's revered etc in some circles, but thankfully I'm not a member of any of those circles

I have family who fought in 1916 (for the Republic before anyone asks!) so I'm definitely not pro British/ Unionist, but Bobby Sands, just a terrorist in my honest opinion, and again that's something I'm entitled to!

What innocent men, women and children?

You sound like British media...

Whether you like it or not there is no difference in Bobby Sands or James Connolly.

2 heroes who died trying to free their country of a foreign occupation. Theres more blood on the hands of any British, American, French, Canadian or any other active army then there are on ANY Irish republican.

Manic Moran · 31-12-2010 8:23am

seiphil wrote: »

My view only on this but I believe that the Death of Bobby Sands and the 9 other hungerstrikers was worth it.

Its a mirror image of what Connolly and Pearse did in 1916. They knew that they could and would not defeat the British forces in Ireland but they believed that it would ignite a fire in Republican's bellies and thats what it did.

And a lot of good it did in the long run, too. Or have I missed out on the fact that Northern Ireland is no longer still a part of Her Majesty's United Kingdom?

IMHO, they should have been treated like every other prisoner there. If the population gets uniforms, so do the PIRA members (and any other paramilitaries). If the population gets a visitor and a package a week, so do the PIRA members (and any other paramilitaries).
Doesn't seem that hard a concept to me.

On the larger scale, I am not a big believer in dying for your country.

NTM

seiphil · 31-12-2010 8:29am

Manic Moran wrote: »

And a lot of good it did in the long run, too. Or have I missed out on the fact that Northern Ireland is no longer still a part of Her Majesty's United Kingdom?

IMHO, they should have been treated like every other prisoner there. If the population gets uniforms, so do the PIRA members (and any other paramilitaries). If the population gets a visitor and a package a week, so do the PIRA members (and any other paramilitaries).
Doesn't seem that hard a concept to me.

NTM

I see what your saying but members of the IRA and republicans don't see it like that.

The IRA is a peoples army, they don't see themselves as criminals and in their areas they are not seen as criminals but saviours.

Sands and co in their eyes and the eyes of many were in a war, so when they were arrested they wanted to be treated like POW's.

This would be the same with any army.

At the end of the day it goes down to personal views and opinions.

Some see the IRA as terrorist's others as freedom fighters. It will always be a conflicted argument with both sides believing they are correct.

mikemac · 31-12-2010 8:34am

Bobby Sands may have got the attention and he died first but don't forget the other nine. They are not forgotten

Even from your background OP, a more appropriate thread title would have been on the ten, not just Bobby Sands.
Don't hold Bobby Sands up and not mention the other nine, he was no more or no less then them

getz · 31-12-2010 8:47am

seiphil wrote: »

I see what your saying but members of the IRA and republicans don't see it like that.

The IRA is a peoples army, they don't see themselves as criminals and in their areas they are not seen as criminals but saviours.

Sands and co in their eyes and the eyes of many were in a war, so when they were arrested they wanted to be treated like POW's.

This would be the same with any army.

At the end of the day it goes down to personal views and opinions.

Some see the IRA as terrorist's others as freedom fighters. It will always be a conflicted argument with both sides believing they are correct.

i think you should read the geneva convention,and you will find that the IRA never even matched any of the criteria,

lugha · 31-12-2010 9:24am

seiphil wrote: »

Whether you like it or not there is no difference in Bobby Sands or James Connolly.

Sands, according to his sister, would now be in the ranks of the dissidents had he lived.
But you are right. There is no great difference between the 1916 lot, PIRA, CIRA and RIRA. Most Irish people would have agreed with their ends but not with their means. Which of course presents a dilemma for the modern day nationalist. The want to reject the dissidents and in most cases PIRA too, but cannot countenance doing this for the 1916 "heroes"

COYW · 31-12-2010 9:26am

Stheno wrote: »

I was eight at the time and don't remember it much despite growing up across from Portlaoise Prison.

I was alive at the time also and dont remember much about him at all. The name rings a bell but thats about it. Then again, I certainly wouldnt class him as a of hero of mine.

Terrontress · 31-12-2010 10:40am

The difference between the 1916 rebels and the hunger-strikers is that the rebels were executed and the hunger-strikers killed themselves.

Both groups knew they were involved in criminal activity. The only reason why the hunger-strikers were in a position to martyr themselves was because they got caught. There was no bravery to their crimes.

They must have had incredible presence of mind and bravery to go through with their suicide in such a protracted and public manner.

As regards the poster who claims that in the 'IRA areas' that they have had full support, that is nonsense. Joe Hendron of the SDLP held West Belfast for most of the nineties and it was only when SF started talking about peace that people started looking toward them again. Everyone was sick of the IRA and it was good riddance to bad rubbish.

seiphil · 31-12-2010 11:09am

Terrontress wrote: »

The difference between the 1916 rebels and the hunger-strikers is that the rebels were executed and the hunger-strikers killed themselves.

Both groups knew they were involved in criminal activity. The only reason why the hunger-strikers were in a position to martyr themselves was because they got caught. There was no bravery to their crimes.

They must have had incredible presence of mind and bravery to go through with their suicide in such a protracted and public manner.

As regards the poster who claims that in the 'IRA areas' that they have had full support, that is nonsense. Joe Hendron of the SDLP held West Belfast for most of the nineties and it was only when SF started talking about peace that people started looking toward them again. Everyone was sick of the IRA and it was good riddance to bad rubbish.

I was referring to South Belfast and the Bogside more then aintin.

And when they did leave these places have been terrorised by hoods.

Now once again they are wanted back to sort out the anti-social problems.

SEPT 23 1989 · 31-12-2010 11:15am

Any death in the cause of a United Ireland has been a waste

Terrontress · 31-12-2010 11:26am

seiphil wrote: »

I was referring to South Belfast and the Bogside more then aintin.

And when they did leave these places have been terrorised by hoods.

Now once again they are wanted back to sort out the anti-social problems.

You mentioned IRA areas and did not include West Belfast!?!

And where in South Belfast are you referring to? The Markets and Lower Ormeau? There are probably no more than a few thousand people in those neighbourhoods. And the SDLP and Workers Party have a very significant presence there.

seiphil · 31-12-2010 11:40am

Terrontress wrote: »

You mentioned IRA areas and did not include West Belfast!?!

And where in South Belfast are you referring to? The Markets and Lower Ormeau? There are probably no more than a few thousand people in those neighbourhoods. And the SDLP and Workers Party have a very significant presence there.

I would add Donegal Road to that.

I would also include parts of West Belfast and Ardoyne from the North.

Then you have the Bogside, Lurgan, Places in Fermanagh and other spots all over the North

Terrontress · 31-12-2010 11:48am

seiphil wrote: »

I would add Donegal Road to that.

Jesus Christ, I wouldn't!

I am guessing that you don't know Belfast very well. Or the rest of the North. I don't believe that many of the areas you mention had strong electoral representation from SF toward the end of the IRA's campaign

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 2:09pm

The Rook wrote: »

While you're by all means entitles to your opinion I don't agree, he was a criminal, a terrorist, targeting innocent men, women and children, not a political prisoner. I know he's revered etc in some circles, but thankfully I'm not a member of any of those circles

I have family who fought in 1916 (for the Republic before anyone asks!) so I'm definitely not pro British/ Unionist, but Bobby Sands, just a terrorist in my honest opinion, and again that's something I'm entitled to!

Tbh I am confused as to how you could class Bobby Sands as a terrorist when he had more apparent and clear support from the people, illustrated by the fact he was elected an MP, than the men of 1916 had before they were killed.

In fact the only reason I think you feel the men of 1916 are not terrorists is because they got a republic in the end.

Het-Field · 31-12-2010 2:29pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Tbh I am confused as to how you could class Bobby Sands as a terrorist when he had more apparent and clear support from the people, illustrated by the fact he was elected an MP, than the men of 1916 had before they were killed.

In fact the only reason I think you feel the men of 1916 are not terrorists is because they got a republic in the end.

So the end justifies the means ?

Further, I would suggest that your view is over-simplistic. The Republic was declared by John A Costello. Offers were on the table at the time the 1916ers took up arms. It has also been argued that what really irked the Irish people was the executions without the use of fair procedures.

I would also like to know how you would classify the actions by the rebels in Bolands Mill ? Heroic or terrorist. Bear in mind, the actions taken were with a view to silencing dissent.

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 2:37pm

Het-Field wrote: »

Further, I would suggest that your view is over-simplistic. The Republic was declared by John A Costello.

Apologies, I should have said "relative independence"

Offers were on the table at the time the 1916ers took up arms.

Home rule? :rolleyes:

It has also been argued that what really irked the Irish people was the executions without the use of fair procedures.

They where made into martyrs by the Brits, just like the hunger strikers were.

I would also like to know how you would classify the actions by the rebels in Bolands Mill ? Heroic or terrorist. Bear in mind, the actions taken were with a view to silencing dissent.

Much like with the PIRA I disagree with some of their actions, yet agree with the use of force and the need for an armed campaign.

mgmt · 31-12-2010 2:41pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

They where made into martyrs by the Brits, just like the hunger strikers were.

Much like with the PIRA I disagree with some of their actions, yet agree with the use of force and the need for an armed campaign.

Honestly how? The PIRA were going against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of NI.

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 2:44pm

mgmt wrote: »

Honestly how? The PIRA were going against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of NI.

I dont think the civil rights campaign would have ever achieved anything without force.

If it wasnt for the PIRA nationalists would be living the same as they where in the 60s. Thats my belief.

It wasn't me! · 31-12-2010 2:47pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If it wasnt for the PIRA nationalists would be living the same as they where in the 60s. Thats my belief.

Considering nothing else on earth is the same as it was in the 60s, there is absolutely no logical basis for that assumption, at all.

Wolfe Tone · 31-12-2010 2:50pm

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Considering nothing else on earth is the same as it was in the 60s, there is absolutely no logical basis for that assumption, at all.

So you are saying if they were all good little boys and put up with the sh!te way they were treated the unionists would for some reason start treating them as equals?

What did Bobby Sands die for?

Comments