On this day in 1981 Bobby Sands began his Hunger Strike

tac foley

riffmongous wrote: »

My intention wasn't to compare to IRA and RAF in any other way than as destabilising political forces and point out why a country might not want to comment on another countries problems, which could explain the lack of official response to Sand's death.

On the other hand, it might be construed that the late Mr Sands was world famous in Ballysomewhere, but meant little or nothing to the rest of the world as a whole. Especially one where public explosions and brutal murders were not the accepted methods of expressing a diversity of political opinion.

tac

riffmongous

tac foley wrote: »

On the other hand, it might be construed that the late Mr Sands was world famous in Ballysomewhere, but meant little or nothing to the rest of the world as a whole. Especially one where public explosions and brutal murders were not the accepted methods of expressing a diversity of political opinion.

tac

Maybe, judging from the evidence above I would say at the time it would have meant something, but nowadays? I think the whole NI conflict and Sands mean little to the rest of the world and increasingly so to people in Ireland itself.

But on your second point well you can still get plenty of support for individuals and groups that were complicit in murder in most of the world, for political and social reasons.

ChicagoJoe

tac foley wrote: »

Just to put things into prespective with regard to the activities of the Red Army Faction ak RAF, and those of the so-called 'Troubles #2' - to differentiate that period from the Troubles #1, let's look at the total casualties in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1981. Perhaps then some of you might see why Mr Sands' decision to starve himself to death had rather less resonance than you might have wished for among those of a less-than-impressed world-wide audience.

Total DEATHS in Northern Ireland - Period 1969 - 1981. The injured are not noted, but can reasonably be expected to be at least twice to three times these total amounts.

Civilians - 1261

British military - 712

Republican Paramilitary - 242

Loyalist Paramilitary - 78

If seeing a reminder of the numbers of innocent people reduced to bloody pulp by bombs or left bleeding in the streets and hedgerows from the combined efforts of the late Mr Sands and his pals causes offence........

Tough.

tac

Here we go the strawman sock puppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_sockpuppet#Strawman_sockpuppet

ChicagoJoe

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Death is the ultimate form of violence; suicide is the ultimate form of self-violence. Threatening to do violence to achieve an end is blackmail. Does not matter who does it, but the ethics of the matter are more debatable when the blackmailer has a huge degree of support, e.g. Gandhi, Mandela, McSwiney.

Grand, you couldn't hav legitimized Bobby Sands better. It's laughable how you are so concerned about so called blackmail or violence by McSwiney etc while ignoring in the equation easily one of the violent blackmailers in history Britain.

To compare Sands to McSwiney (as you are trying to do) is both unrealistic and total non sequitur. McSwiney had the support of a huge part of the national population and was elected unopposed by his local population. Sands was elected by a very narrow margin in a contestedelection and out of electorate of 60,000 he got a shade over 50% of the vote. He did not have national support, because the IRA had no mandate from the vast bulk of the population of this island. In the 1981 election (26 counties) the Anti-H-Block people fielded 12 candidate and just 2(both hungerstrikers, in border counties) got in. That result was the vast majority of the 26 county’s population telling the HBlock/IRA that ‘we do not support you’. The main reason is given in the death figures posted by TAC Foley above.

The IRA (and their Loyalist counterparts) still have no mandate, unless you want their thugs to support a side-line business in bank raids, drug dealing or fuel laundering.

If caring for mandates or national support meant anything, the British wouldn't have occupied Ireland or anywhere else for that matter. And you'll find that the loyalists counterparts were the RUC, B Specials, British army etc which the IRA were opposing. What could be more British than murdering and intimidating the natives eh ?

Your comment on Sands getting a mention in the NYT being a claim to 'international status' well just a month ago I was struck by the headline ‘A Cleavage Trend Reveals a More Natural Décolletage for Hollywood Stars on the Red Carpet.’ The amount of some starlet’s flesh on show at an awards ceremony is hardly in international issue, yet it drew a big headline and a long article..

None of those who posted here in support of Sands have been able to say what benefit he could have brought to this country. Neither you nor the OP has contributed any serious way (apart from misty-eyed sentimentalism) to support your claims on what Sands achieved or on my comment

Hopeless attempt at humour :rolleyes:

tac foley

I post facts and you post personal insults.

Shame, Sir.

When 'the British occupied Ireland' at the request of an Irish king, I recall, the words mandate and civil rights had yet to be written. Classing the British Army as the 'loyalist counterparts' of anything is a measure of your ignorance about the British Army.

However, it is all too easy for a post like this to degenerate into one where worship of the the sainted bomber and murderer, the late Mr Sands hides the real reason why this post was put here in the first place.

That was quite simply, IMO to create a divisive thread, to divide the forum into the Mr Sands' worshippers, and those who would have quite liked to have strangled him and all his pals with barbed wire.

In this aim, the post has succeeded admirably.

tac

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

I post facts and you post personal insults.

Shame, Sir.

When 'the British occupied Ireland' at the request of an Irish king, I recall, the words mandate and civil rights had yet to be written. Classing the British Army as the 'loyalist counterparts' of anything is a measure of your ignorance about the British Army.

However, it is all too easy for a post like this to degenerate into one where worship of the the sainted bomber and murderer, the late Mr Sands hides the real reason why this post was put here in the first place.

That was quite simply, IMO to create a divisive thread, to divide the forum into the Mr Sands' worshippers, and those who would have quite liked to have strangled him and all his pals with barbed wire.

In this aim, the post has succeeded admirably.

tac

I think you may have overlooked the fact that before the arrival of the British, admittedly at the behest of an Irish noble and authorised by an English pope, Brehon law prevailed in Ireland.

Compared to English common law it had relatively well advanced and even recognisably modern concepts such as equality of the sexes, copyright, partitive inheritance, etc.

In many ways, it was far superior to what replaced it, including the fact it drew its authority from the community rather than from the 'king.' Kingship and sovereignty in pre-Norman Ireland were less absolute than what operated in England.

.......and the Tudor Reconquest was not carried out at the behest or request of anyone in Ireland - it was driven by the English parliament's desire to reassert central control over the island.

tac foley

Hey, don't blame me. My family [father's] were either peasants in Ireland, or moneylenders and hated, feared and loathed in France [mother's].

What little I know about Brehon Law I've gleaned from the writings of Peter Tremayne and his 'Fidelma' who-dunnits.

All seemed very well-thought-out an eminently fair and reasonable to me - the fine system seems to have worked particularly well.

However, from what I've since read, Brehon law did not, it seems support mass murder of innocents, nor support suicide as a form of blackmail.

However, we digress.

Back to the re-burgeoning hatred, eh?

tac, safely home in deepest SE Ontario.

tac foley

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you may have overlooked the fact that before the arrival of the British...

At that time there were NO British. The 'invited' invaders were Anglo-French, and a whole lot more French than Anglo.

The Norman invasion of Ireland was a two-stage process, which began on 1 May 1169 when a force of loosely associated NORMAN knights landed near Bannow, County Wexford at the request of Diarmait Mac Murchada, the ousted King of Leinster, who sought their help in regaining his kingdom.
On 18 October 1171, Henry II landed a much bigger army in Waterford to ensure his continuing control over the preceding Norman force. In the process he took Dublin and had accepted the fealty of the Irish kings and bishops by 1172, so creating the Lordship of Ireland, which formed part of his Angevin empire.

Anyhow, the later Tudor invasion didn't go all that well, as Fiach MacHugh O'Byrne proved at the Battle of Carlow.

I'm sure you know the song.

tac

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

At that time there were NO British. The 'invited' invaders were Anglo-French, and a whole lot more French than Anglo.

The Norman invasion of Ireland was a two-stage process, which began on 1 May 1169 when a force of loosely associated NORMAN knights landed near Bannow, County Wexford at the request of Diarmait Mac Murchada, the ousted King of Leinster, who sought their help in regaining his kingdom.
On 18 October 1171, Henry II landed a much bigger army in Waterford to ensure his continuing control over the preceding Norman force. In the process he took Dublin and had accepted the fealty of the Irish kings and bishops by 1172, so creating the Lordship of Ireland, which formed part of his Angevin empire.

Anyhow, the later Tudor invasion didn't go all that well, as Fiach MacHugh O'Byrne proved at the Battle of Carlow.

I'm sure you know the song.

tac

The invasion was multi-stage and I was taking issue with the idea you suggested that ".....the words mandate and civil rights had yet to be written."

Just because the sovereign-centric common law had yet to embrace those concepts didn't mean that they didn't exist. The Cambro-Norman 'invasion' - effectively an elite transfer - disrupted a society that in many ways was politically, legally and economically more advanced than the arrivistes.

What it did lack was the relatively advanced military technology and especially the use of castles to dominate rather than fortify.

pedroeibar1

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Grand, you couldn't hav legitimized Bobby Sands better. It's laughable how you are so concerned about so called blackmail or violence by McSwiney etc while ignoring in the equation easily one of the violent blackmailers in history Britain.

If caring for mandates or national support meant anything, the British wouldn't have occupied Ireland or anywhere else for that matter. And you'll find that the loyalists counterparts were the RUC, B Specials, British army etc which the IRA were opposing. What could be more British than murdering and intimidating the natives eh ?


Hopeless attempt at humour :rolleyes:

What a series of inane remarks replete with clichéd BS and childish emoticons. All in an effort to avoid a response to my basic question. You cannot even rise to the adroitness of weasel words.
So, unless you answer the basic question asked of you (and of the OP) you have neither the strength of your convictions nor the honesty to show your beliefs. I will repeat what I wrote:

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt (the convicted Omagh bomber) has always been against the Belfast Agreement and its tenets, stating that "Bobby did not die for cross-border bodies with executive powers.’ (English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, p 316–317) She and her husband were founder members of The 32 County Sovereignty Movement, generally accepted as the political wing of the RIRA.
So, simple Yes or No, do you support what Sands main torchbearers stand for and are saying today?

A simple yes or no is all that is required, otherwise you show yourself for what you are.

ChicagoJoe

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

What a series of inane remarks replete with clichéd BS and childish emoticons. All in an effort to avoid a response to my basic question. You cannot even rise to the adroitness of weasel words.
So, unless you answer the basic question asked of you (and of the OP) you have neither the strength of your convictions nor the honesty to show your beliefs. I will repeat what I wrote:

A simple yes or no is all that is required, otherwise you show yourself for what you are.

Your the one who claims that "The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt " - not me !! But if there was one good thing that Thatcher did in her lifetime and it was to introduce the Anglo Irish Agreement after the hunger strikes to the anger of unionism. Like I stated, it knocked unionism off it's perch from which it has not recovered or ever will

pedroeibar1

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Your the one who claims that "The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt " - not me !!

No, I gave a source and asked a question that remains unanswered.
A simple yes or no is all that is required, otherwise you show yourself for what you are.

Jawgap

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Your the one who claims that "The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt " - not me !! But if there was one good thing that Thatcher did in her lifetime and it was to introduce the Anglo Irish Agreement after the hunger strikes to the anger of unionism. Like I stated, it knocked unionism off it's perch from which it has not recovered or ever will

Knocked unionism of its perch? Thatcher was the leader of a party called the Conservative and UNIONIST Party (think it still is) - I'm not sure she would have endured if she knocked her own party of a perch.

I'm open to correction, but I think the Anglo Irish agreement drew in cross-party support when it was debated in Westminster - aside from the usual holdouts.

pedroeibar1

Jawgap wrote: »

Knocked unionism of its perch? Thatcher was the leader of a party called the Conservative and UNIONIST Party (think it still is) .........I'm not sure she would have endured if she knocked her own party of a perch.

Agreed. Officially it is the Conservative and Unionist Party, abbreviated usually to the Conservative Party. I'm not going down the road of a debate on Thatcher or the other red herrings introduced by the OP or C Joe. The topic is about Sands and the issue that remains unanswered by them are their hero worship claims on the alleged 'benefit' Sands could have brought to modern Ireland when many of those historically closely associated with him are RIRA thugs. Not that I expect an erudite, or even straightforward honest answer......

tac foley

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Your the one who claims that "The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt " - not me !! But if there was one good thing that Thatcher did in her lifetime and it was to introduce the Anglo Irish Agreement after the hunger strikes to the anger of unionism. Like I stated, it knocked unionism off it's perch from which it has not recovered or ever will

..which of course is why the North of Ireland is not only still part of the United Kingdom, but is also safe in that status in perpetuity due to the government of the republic of Ireland having renounced all claims to unification.

tac

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

..which of course is why the North of Ireland is not only still part of the United Kingdom, but is also safe in that status in perpetuity due to the government of the republic of Ireland having renounced all claims to unification.

tac

Actually we didn't

We revised art 3 to say

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland
shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.

...........

We removed the territorial claim.

tac foley

Let's be realistic here, Sir, it being the expressed will of the Irish nation who live in your part of Ireland, you will see President Putin as Queen of the May before you see the Ulster Unionists agree to the surrender of their sovereignty to an all-Ireland form of wholly independent government outside the United Kingdom.

tac

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

Let's be realistic here, Sir, it being the expressed will of the Irish nation who live in your part of Ireland, you will see President Putin as Queen of the May before you see the Ulster Unionists agree to the surrender of their sovereignty to an all-Ireland form of wholly independent government outside the United Kingdom.

tac

I wasn't suggesting that the island would be unified. In fact, I strongly doubt it will ever happen. Even when demographics take their natural course and the nationalists are in the majority, they won't vote for it. They may aspire, but self-interest indicates they won't follow through.

I was just pointing out you seem not to have understood the changes we voted through on our constitution.........sir.

tac foley

Thank you for the explanation, and for the corrections. I agree that it is unlikely in the extreme.

In any case, I sense that you are insulted, for some reason, by my use of the polite address 'Sir'. You don't use your real name, as I do, so I have no idea what your real name is, and we have never been introduced, nor are we ever likely to be. I was brought up to call anybody whose name was not known to me, but with whom I nevertheless had some kind of social interaction - such as that found on ths site - to respectfully refer to them as 'Sir', with a capital letter, operating under the assumption that the person that I was addressing understood that it WAS meant respectfully.

It's no big deal, simply just another indication of how little we can ever understand each other - you on a forum in your own country, and me four thousand miles away in another country and culture.

tac

Jawgap

tac foley wrote: »

Thank you for the explanation, and for the corrections. I agree that it is unlikely in the extreme.

In any case, I sense that you are insulted, for some reason, by my use of the polite address 'Sir'. You don't use your real name, as I do, so I have no idea what your real name is, and we have never been introduced, nor are we ever likely to be. I was brought up to call anybody whose name was not known to me, but with whom I nevertheless had some kind of social interaction - such as that found on ths site - to respectfully refer to them as 'Sir', with a capital letter, operating under the assumption that the person that I was addressing understood that it WAS meant respectfully.

It's no big deal, simply just another indication of how little we can ever understand each other - you on a forum in your own country, and me four thousand miles away in another country and culture.

tac

Not insulted - and I've worked long enough in the UK and lectured / spoken at plenty of events (military history conferences / courses) to develop a decent understanding of Ireland, the UK and the dynamics of the relationship between them.

While respecting your previous service, I don't think you should confuse serving somewhere with being from there.

I'd also suggest perhaps observing the advice issued to American GIs arriving into NI to be stationed there....

There are two excellent rules of conduct for the Amer­ican abroad. They are good rules anywhere but they are particularly important in Ireland:

(1) Don’t argue religion.

(2) Don’t argue politics.

tac foley

Fine by me.

'bye.

tac

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

In any case, I sense that you are insulted, for some reason, by my use of the polite address 'Sir'. You don't use your real name, as I do, so I have no idea what your real name is, and we have never been introduced, nor are we ever likely to be. I was brought up to call anybody whose name was not known to me, but with whom I nevertheless had some kind of social interaction - such as that found on ths site - to respectfully refer to them as 'Sir', with a capital letter, operating under the assumption that the person that I was addressing understood that it WAS meant respectfully.

It's no big deal, simply just another indication of how little we can ever understand each other - you on a forum in your own country, and me four thousand miles away in another country and culture.

tac

Just use the username, that is peoples name on this site when you do not know their proper name.


In any case you only bring out your 'polite' use of sir when you are losing an argument with another user (excuse my observation).

rockatansky

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

many of those historically closely associated with him are RIRA thugs. Not that I expect an erudite, or even straightforward honest answer......

Ah back to the old linking Sands to the RIRA again. Why don't you just come out and say it was Sands who responsible for Omagh instead of trying to indirectly link him to it. Lets be honest here, that's what you're really trying to do. Either way you're still as wrong as you were before.

Can you name the 'many' who were close to him are RIRA thugs. We all know about his sister and her views on the provisional leadership. Can you please give details of these many other people who you are referring to?

pedroeibar1

rockatansky wrote: »

Ah back to the old linking Sands to the RIRA again. Why don't you just come out and say it was Sands who responsible for Omagh instead of trying to indirectly link him to it. Lets be honest here, that's what you're really trying to do. Either way you're still as wrong as you were before.

Can you name the 'many' who were close to him are RIRA thugs. We all know about his sister and her views on the provisional leadership. Can you please give details of these many other people who you are referring to?

Your comment illustrates the twisted ‘logic’ of some supposedly Republican individuals. Supposedly Republican because they have no idea of what Republicanism is about, nor yet democracy. It is inaccurate because at no time did I suggest that Sands was responsible for Omagh, he was dead almost two decades when that happened, an atrocity where twenty-nine people died and more than 200 were injured. All of them innocent.

If as you say ‘we all know about his sister and her views’ I have no doubt you fully understand what I implied about the RIRA thugs. Even today Sinn Fein will never condemn any past IRA action, murder, bombing, atrocity, disappearance, whatever because in their twisted logic it would be ‘dishonourable’ to the ‘sacred memories’ of their ‘martyrs’. The real reason is that they are too cowardly to say anything negative because of a fear of losing a few votes from a rabid, tiny minority.

We are more than 80 posts into this thread and not one Sands supporter has provided a valid suggestion to back up the views in the opening post. (In case you’ve forgotten it, it was the nonsensical ‘How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children.’ )

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Just use the username, that is peoples name on this site when you do not know their proper name.

In any case you only bring out your 'polite' use of sir when you are losing an argument with another user (excuse my observation).

Not true, Sir, I endeavour to be polite all the time. I used to call my father 'Sir' as well. 'Sir' with a lower-case initial letter might possibly be construed as impolite in some circles, and I hope that you will have noticed that I always try to use a capital letter when writing it.

In any case, I wasn't aware that I was engaged in an argument of any kind, more one way communication where you told me the facts, and I, having previously misunderstood the status quo, revised my errant and shaky knowledge. You will notice, I hope, that I actually said 'thank you'?

tac, off for a nice BIG breakfast at Denny's.

BrendanHughes1

Fair play to the lad. What ever you thought of the IRA you have to admire his unconquerable convictions. He was fighting for something very dare to most irish peoples hearts at the time even if they didn't agree with the methods used by the IRA to get it.

The British government were totally wrong in trying to criminalize these men. They were fighting a war of national liberation not a sectarian war like the British right wing press tried to make it.

And the brave mans sacrifice with out a doubt made the peace process possible otherwise the war might still be going on like at the same intensity that it was from 81-94.

RIP soldier.

Fratton Fred

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

Fair play to the lad. What ever you thought of the IRA you have to admire his unconquerable convictions. He was fighting for something very dare to most irish peoples hearts at the time even if they didn't agree with the methods used by the IRA to get it.

The British government were totally wrong in trying to criminalize these men. They were fighting a war of national liberation not a sectarian war like the British right wing press tried to make it.

And the brave mans sacrifice with out a doubt made the peace process possible otherwise the war might still be going on like at the same intensity that it was from 81-94.

RIP soldier.

Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry played a bigger part in the peace process. The ira bombed themselves in to an untenable position.

The difference being, thanks to the likes of Bobby Sands, they had no say in the matter.

Jawgap

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

Fair play to the lad. What ever you thought of the IRA you have to admire his unconquerable convictions. He was fighting for something very dare to most irish peoples hearts at the time even if they didn't agree with the methods used by the IRA to get it.

The British government were totally wrong in trying to criminalize these men. They were fighting a war of national liberation not a sectarian war like the British right wing press tried to make it.

And the brave mans sacrifice with out a doubt made the peace process possible otherwise the war might still be going on like at the same intensity that it was from 81-94.

RIP soldier.

Allow me to summarise if I may.....

You have offered zero evidence to support the OP's original statements with respect to Bobby Sands, specifically,

His election, though not as a Sinn Féin candidate, showed Sinn Féin the massive support that was latent out there that could potentially be tapped into........

Throughout the world Bobby Sands is held up as a figure of resistance and equality and is internationally respected.........

If we really are a 'mature nation' it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve, not the disdain, embarrassment and confusion that many exude mainly due to a lack of knowledge......

Bobby Sands and others didn't cause the war, they merely fought back. Fighting back against an invading aggressive army is never wrong.....

How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children......

......

Instead you opt to trot out the usual narrative that has been well trailed in other forums, perhaps in the hope it will deflect people's attention from the fact that the above statements have no foundation whatsoever in facts.

I wasn't going to 'bite' at the rest of your post, but what the hell, it's friday.....

......if the British government were wrong in criminalising 'these men' (I assume you are referring to PIRA 'volunteers' rather than just the hunger strikers) - what about the Irish government, and other governments in other jurisdictions who have seen fit to prosecute?

.....the republican view may well hold forth that the conflict was not driven by sectarianism - but the facts on the ground suggest otherwise in terms of the number and ferocity of attacks carried out that targeted people from the Protestant community going about their lawful business - in other words, just doing everyday things the rest of us take for granted.

.....they were not fighting a war of national liberation, they were fighting to establish a republic based on Marxist / Leninist principles - history has shown us that such republics are rarely liberating for anyone not a member of a narrow elite.

ChicagoJoe

tac foley wrote: »

..which of course is why the North of Ireland is not only still part of the United Kingdom, but is also safe in that status in perpetuity due to the government of the republic of Ireland having renounced all claims to unification.

tac

If the Anglo Irish Agreement was so good for the unionists then why were they so against it !!!! You haven't a clue buddy, not a clue

ChicagoJoe

Jawgap wrote: »

.....they were not fighting a war of national liberation, they were fighting to establish a republic based on Marxist / Leninist principles - history has shown us that such republics are rarely liberating for anyone not a member of a narrow elite.

SF/IRA must be the only political organisations that are called both fascists and communists down the years !!!

Appearently Thatcher secretly admired their courage " But privately, Lady Thatcher admitted to having a certain admiration for Bobby Sands and nine other prisoners who died on hunger strike, saying she had to “hand it” to them "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/10010531/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-admiration-for-IRA-hunger-strikers.html