The story of what led bobby sands to join the IRA

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

no but your author from Kenya was!

The British had the slogan "Labour & Freedom" over the front gate of Ngenya detention camp in 1950s Kenya. Sounds disturbingly familiar doesn't it Mary?

jack923

bubblypop wrote: »

But it was done by people that were members of the PIRA before the gfa.
So same people, same organisation, different name

Done by members of an organisation with about 15 members at the time, it's a different group which doesn't represent the PIRA in any way.

If members of Fine Gael broke off and started a different party they no longer represent the Fine Gael.

jack923

NiallBoo wrote: »

Not a chance.

While many sympathise with the romantic notion if a united ireland, they're very aware that Northern Ireland is an unstable basket-case and wouldn't want to open that can of worms.

People were so unbelievably tired and fed up of constant violence when the good Friday agreement happened.

It would most likely still pass right now and in the 70s it would undoubtedly have passed there's literally no question of it.

jack923

bubblypop wrote: »

But it was done by people that were members of the PIRA before the gfa.
So same people, same organisation, different name

*some of the same people, different organisation, different name.

There I corrected that for you.

jack923

Jesus. wrote: »

Recover? Recover from what? Ireland was poor as sh1t under British rule at the time. The Capital had some of the worst slums in Europe. There wasn't much to recover back to.

Hahaha exactly.

jack923

jack923 wrote: »

Done by members of an organisation with about 15 members at the time, it's a different group which doesn't represent the PIRA in any way.

If members of Fine Gael broke off and started a different party they no longer represent the Fine Gael.

It had a lot more than 15 members, trust me.
Anyway, they were only carrying on the war with the same ideologies they always had.
So why are the PIRA any different to any of the dissident groups out there now?

jack923

bubblypop wrote: »

It had a lot more than 15 members, trust me.
Anyway, they were only carrying on the war with the same ideologies they always had.
So why are the PIRA any different to any of the dissident groups out there now?

Because they initially came about to defend their own who were being shot dead, burned out of their houses for nothing while the police force done nothing, they were then treated just as bad by the British army who initiallying came in to protect them.

They then began their offensive campaign in 1972 when they believed a united Ireland was the only way for a better future for their children as there was no future for the Catholic children already there at the time.

The real IRA wanted/want a United Ireland solely for pride and also they are just common criminals living the life of luxury unlike the members of the PIRA.

pedroeibar1

jack923 wrote: »

The real IRA wanted/want a United Ireland solely for pride and also they are just common criminals living the life of luxury unlike the members of the PIRA.

Jesus. wrote: »

So how much would you be willing to take? If they came in and gang-raped your mother in front of you when you were a kid, would you stand up for yourself?

Those who know anything about civil strife in Ireland during 1916-22 would be aware of the absence of rape as a weapon/means of terror and of the respect all sides had for women. Of the few documented instances of rape in that era, the IRA were the culprits - in the “punishment rape” of a woman in Galway(?) for selling milk to the British soldiers, the other again by the IRA, who at a Big House raid isolated two C of I maids from RC staff and ‘molested’ them. (Everyday Violence in the Irish Civil War. Gemma Clark).

I cannot recall mentions of rapes by RIC/B-Specials /troops in NI, the only incidences of rape there also were by the IRA or its factions, the worst being the gang-rape by 8 (from the IPLO) of a woman in Divis Flats. (Ballymurphy and the Irish War by De Baroid p. 331)

Similarly the IRA (from the top down) has consistently tried to cover up the widespread paedophile antics of many of its members.

There is enough documentation in the public domain to show that the Red Hand, UVF, PIRA, IRA, IPLO, etc, all are scumbags and criminals, and trying to justify their actions is futile in any moral society. Extolling the merits of a criminal organization is equally repugnant.

jack923

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Those who know anything about civil strife in Ireland during 1916-22 would be aware of the absence of rape as a weapon/means of terror and of the respect all sides had for women. Of the few documented instances of rape in that era, the IRA were the culprits - in the “punishment rape” of a woman in Galway(?) for selling milk to the British soldiers, the other again by the IRA, who at a Big House raid isolated two C of I maids from RC staff and ‘molested’ them. (Everyday Violence in the Irish Civil War. Gemma Clark).

I cannot recall mentions of rapes by RIC/B-Specials /troops in NI, the only incidences of rape there also were by the IRA or its factions, the worst being the gang-rape by 8 (from the IPLO) of a woman in Divis Flats. (Ballymurphy and the Irish War by De Baroid p. 331)

Similarly the IRA (from the top down) has consistently tried to cover up the widespread paedophile antics of many of its members.

There is enough documentation in the public domain to show that the Red Hand, UVF, PIRA, IRA, IPLO, etc, all are scumbags and criminals, and trying to justify their actions is futile in any moral society. Extolling the merits of a criminal organization is equally repugnant.

He wasn't talking about 1916-22 and of course you wouldn't recall rape from 1969 onwards it would have been covered up just like ballymurphy, springhill and bloody sunday.

They are not all scumbags they are heroes, freedom fighters to many including myself. you never included the British State in your list of supposed scumbags and criminals.

corner of hells

jack923 wrote: »

He wasn't talking about 1916-22 and of course you wouldn't recall rape from 1969 onwards it would have been covered up just like ballymurphy, springhill and bloody sunday.

They are not all scumbags they are heroes, freedom fighters to many including myself. you never included the British State in your list of supposed scumbags and criminals.

The "kangaroo courts" and "nutting squads" were really heroic .

jack923

corner of hells wrote: »

The "kangaroo courts" and "nutting squads" were really heroic .

Really? I wouldn't call it heroic

corner of hells

jack923 wrote: »

Really? I wouldn't call it heroic

These are your heroes , you just said it.

maryishere

jack923 wrote: »

It would most likely still pass right now and in the 70s it would undoubtedly have passed there's literally no question of it.

lol. I bet you did not know that the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum of 1973 (also known as the Border Poll) was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland.
The turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums. Valid votes: 598,283 (99.01% of Total votes)
Spoiled votes: 5,973 (0.99% of Total votes). And guess what - the vote resulted in an overwhelming majority of those who voted stating they wished to remain in the UK.

The electorate were asked to indicate:

"Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"
or

"Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?"

98.9% went for the first option.
Of course your excuse will be that those who do not believe in the democratic process did not vote etc.

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

lol. I bet you did not know that the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum of 1973 (also known as the Border Poll) was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland.
The turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums. Valid votes: 598,283 (99.01% of Total votes)
Spoiled votes: 5,973 (0.99% of Total votes). And guess what - the vote resulted in an overwhelming majority of those who voted stating they wished to remain in the UK.

The electorate were asked to indicate:

"Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"
or

"Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?"

98.9% went for the first option.
Of course your excuse will be that those who do not believe in the democratic process did not vote etc.

No one is denying that most of northern Ireland was protestant/British/Scottish I was talking about the whole island of Ireland not just 6 counties.

jack923

corner of hells wrote: »

These are your heroes , you just said it.

Yes but I wouldn't call those acts "heroic" why would they be heroic? Nutting was necessary yes but not heroic.

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

lol. I bet you did not know that the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum of 1973 (also known as the Border Poll) was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland.
The turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums. Valid votes: 598,283 (99.01% of Total votes)
Spoiled votes: 5,973 (0.99% of Total votes). And guess what - the vote resulted in an overwhelming majority of those who voted stating they wished to remain in the UK.

The electorate were asked to indicate:

"Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"
or

"Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?"

98.9% went for the first option.
Of course your excuse will be that those who do not believe in the democratic process did not vote etc.

You know there was a boycott from catholics on that poll and that less than 1% of the Catholic population turned out to vote.

Del.Monte

jack923 wrote: »

You know there was a boycott from catholics on that poll and that less than 1% of the Catholic population turned out to vote.

You been to Wiki again?

Jesus.

maryishere wrote: »

no but your author from Kenya was!

So that never happened?

maryishere

jack923 wrote: »

You know there was a boycott from catholics on that poll and that less than 1% of the Catholic population turned out to vote.

Other estimates put the Catholic turnout considerably higher than 1% but yes there was a boycott, or according to some Catholics they were intimidated by hardline Republicans not to be seen voting. Many Protestants did not vote either, but yet the poll turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums, even in this state. Catholics had the vote, but Republicans knew they had not the numbers of followers.

corner of hells

jack923 wrote: »

Yes but I wouldn't call those acts "heroic" why would they be heroic? Nutting was necessary yes but not heroic.

Extrajudicial murder is necessary ? Yet a"shoot to kill" policy is outrageous to you.

Jesus.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Those who know anything about civil strife in Ireland during 1916-22 would be aware of the absence of rape.

Its a pity you didn't read my whole post before bulldozing in because if you did you'd have noticed that I said I was only trying to see how far this individual would actually go before he stood up for himself. I did not say any rape was carried out. That was easily deduced from my post.

Jesus.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

[/I] I cannot recall mentions of rapes by RIC/B-Specials /troops in NI.

There was just prior to Aughnacloy. I say "allegedly" yet you left that out of your reports on the *OIRA. You didn't link evidence to substantiate the alleged crimes so I'd suggest you do before people take it as fact.








(*O=Old, not Official)

Jesus.

Mary???

jack923

maryishere wrote: »

Other estimates put the Catholic turnout considerably higher than 1% but yes there was a boycott, or according to some Catholics they were intimidated by hardline Republicans not to be seen voting. Many Protestants did not vote either, but yet the poll turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums, even in this state. Catholics had the vote, but Republicans knew they had not the numbers of followers.

Yes true wether or not they were intimidated or not is up for dispute but I doubt they were intimidated, where did you even get that information from? there probably was an attitude among catholics that you shouldn't vote but I doubt that falls into intimidation.

No harm in giving catholics a vote they cannot win I suppose.

maryishere

Jesus. wrote: »

Mary???

Jesus??? lol

jack923

corner of hells wrote: »

Extrajudicial murder is necessary ? Yet a"shoot to kill" policy is outrageous to you.

When did I say a shoot to kill policy is outrageous? You said something like members of the IRA were complaining about a shoot to kill policy and I said I would agree with you if the British acknowledged it was a war which they didn’t so there shouldn't have been a shoot to kill policy.

Jesus.

That's two glaring points you've failed to address Mary. I've great respect for someone who admits to having a fault in their original argument. I've a lot less for those who stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they can't hear.

corner of hells

jack923 wrote: »

When did I say a shoot to kill policy is outrageous? You said something like members of the IRA were complaining about a shoot to kill policy and I said I would agree with you if the British acknowledged it was a war which they didn’t so there shouldn't have been a shoot to kill policy.

Your logic is baffling " if the British acknowledge it was a war , they could have a shoot to kill policy " ? Am I right so far ?
Yet the IRA because said " it was a war " they get a carte blanche.

Oddly enough I doubt the UK would ever call it " a war " because if you think about it you can't be at war with your own citizens.

jack923

corner of hells wrote: »

Your logic is baffling " if the British acknowledge it was a war , they could have a shoot to kill policy " ? Am I right so far ?
Yet the IRA because said " it was a war " they get a carte blanche.

Oddly enough I doubt the UK would ever call it " a war " because if you think about it you can't be at war with your own citizens.

Thatcher said they would treat them as a criminal gang this was the policy so if they were to treat them as a criminal gang which they weren't treating them as such then why is my logic baffling? They were saying it wasn't a war but were acting as if it was so how can you find my logic baffling?

Your logic right there when you said it wasn't a war because you can't be at war with your own citizens is baffling, does the Irish war of independence ring a bell? Or do you think that also wasn't a war?

Jesus.

corner of hells wrote: »

Your logic is baffling.

I think his logic is perfectly reasonable. Somebody said the IRA cried "shoot to kill" when they were killed despite them declaring it a war. He replied that the British repeatedly claimed it wasn't a war yet regularly behaved as if it was (shoot on sight, internment etc). So both sides were acting at odds to what they were saying.

It was a propaganda war as much as anything else.