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

McArmalite · 24-11-2008 4:39pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

err, are you trying to imply the IRA did not slaughter innocents? it is what they did for a living.

aahh, you see, you should know the rules. excusing murder by calling it an accident (You know, planting a bomb in a pub and then finding out the nearest phone box has been vandalised, we've all been caught out by that old chestnut at sometime:rolleyes:)is ok. rejoicing in the death of British soldiers is ok, or even British politicians and members of the royal family.

You are even allowed to describe respected politicans as "Fat, ugly war criminals" if they are British.

But don't, whatever you do, mock a terrorist who commited suicide because he couldn't get his own way, because he is holier than god:rolleyes:

Slaughtering innocents for a living, well fair play to you Fred, nothing could describe the british army better - whether it be in India 1945 - 1948, Palestine 1945 - 1948, Mayala 1948 - 1960, Korea 1950 - 1953, Kenya, 1955 - 1959, Cyprus 1952 - 1960 , Aden 1955 - 1967, Suez 1956, the Six Counties 1969 - 1994, Malvina's 1982, Afghanistan and Iraq at present.

Fratton Fred · 24-11-2008 5:08pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Slaughtering innocents for a living, well fair play to you Fred, nothing could describe the british army better - whether it be in India 1945 - 1948, Palestine 1945 - 1948, Mayala 1948 - 1960, Korea 1950 - 1953, Kenya, 1955 - 1959, Cyprus 1952 - 1960 , Aden 1955 - 1967, Suez 1956, the Six Counties 1969 - 1994, Malvina's 1982, Afghanistan and Iraq at present.

completely off topic and not related to this thread. there's a British Empire thread where you can "Pontificate" as much as like.

Guy:Incognito · 24-11-2008 5:16pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Slaughtering innocents for a living, well fair play to you Fred, nothing could describe the british army better - whether it be in India 1945 - 1948, Palestine 1945 - 1948, Mayala 1948 - 1960, Korea 1950 - 1953, Kenya, 1955 - 1959, Cyprus 1952 - 1960 , Aden 1955 - 1967, Suez 1956, the Six Counties 1969 - 1994, Malvina's 1982, Afghanistan and Iraq at present.

Ah well that makes it all better. The IRA were just sticking up for the poor Kenyans and Cypiots.

Just a pity they didnt decide suicide bombing was a better course to go.

ilkhanid · 24-11-2008 5:35pm

This kind of bizarre "logic" might be rationalized (to a small degree,mind) if the IRA spent their time murdering British civilians. But they did'nt, most of the people they killed were Irish. So trying to excuse this by spurious references to British crimes of the past-real or imagined-is just plain ridiculous.

RSF Cill Dara · 24-11-2008 8:45pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

err, are you trying to imply the IRA did not slaughter innocents? it is what they did for a living.

No the IRA did not go out with intent to kill any inocents as no army targets civilians, except perhaps those in the American,Israeli or british army

RSF Cill Dara · 24-11-2008 8:52pm

ilkhanid wrote: »

This kind of bizarre "logic" might be rationalized (to a small degree,mind) if the IRA spent their time murdering British civilians. But they did'nt, most of the people they killed were Irish. So trying to excuse this by spurious references to British crimes of the past-real or imagined-is just plain ridiculous.

the majority of IRA victims were Irish? I dont know were you get your facts from but their bull****! the majority of the IRAs victims were lagitimate

ilkhanid · 24-11-2008 10:50pm

"No the IRA did not go out with intent to kill any inocents"

OK.Let's see....Off the top of my head...Kingsmills/Whitecross 1976,Senator Billy Fox 1974, Joanne Mathers 1981,Tullyvallen Orange Hall and Bayardo Bar,both 1975.

"the majority of IRA victims were Irish? I dont know were you get your facts from but their bull****!"
According to the relevant statistics, approximately 1,132 of the people killed by the IRA were natives of,or resident in Ireland, North or South.

RSF Cill Dara · 25-11-2008 11:49pm

ilkhanid wrote: »

"No the IRA did not go out with intent to kill any inocents"

OK.Let's see....Off the top of my head...Kingsmills/Whitecross 1976,Senator Billy Fox 1974, Joanne Mathers 1981,Tullyvallen Orange Hall and Bayardo Bar,both 1975.

"the majority of IRA victims were Irish? I dont know were you get your facts from but their bull****!"
According to the relevant statistics, approximately 1,132 of the people killed by the IRA were natives of,or resident in Ireland, North or South.

Sorry but can i have a link to your "facts" ? your "facts" are down right laughable. less than 30% of IRA victims were innocent, compared to the british army 60% .

kingsmill was not an IRA attack! it was a response to the killing of 6 innocent irish men . kingsmill was an anger attack by locals .

Billy Fox was killed by the OIRA .

Bayardo Bar was a loyalist bar used by active UVF members.

ilkhanid · 26-11-2008 2:57am

"less than 30% of IRA victims were innocent, compared to the british army 60% "
Even taken at face value that is a ghastly figure,kiling nearly a third of innocents in their "war". But they killed a lot more than anybody else and their (and your) definition of what constitutes 'innocence' is twisted.PIRA considered people who had been in the RUC in the past as targets,as well as people who worked for the authorities in any (even distrubuting census forms!) capacity,all judicary,families of security-force members,prison officers,businessmen-even foreigners-who ran industry in the North,Unionist politicians,people who drank in bars frequented by loyalists or the security-forces,etc etc. Probably added together this might make up a quarter of the population..all of them "guilty" by this foul definition.

"kingsmill was not an IRA attack! it was a response to the killing of 6
innocent irish men . kingsmill was an anger attack by locals ".

Aah. Angry locals? No hunting rifles or shotguns? Just locals who have precise intelligence of the buses routine, who happened to get hold of machine-guns at short notice, leave no trace and vanish. Of course they were PIRA, but since the dead PIRA are buried under a green-white-and-orange flag and mouth platitudes about uniting "protestant,catholic,and dissenter,(a phrase spoken by Wolfe Tone, a Protestant Irishman) slaughtering harmless men because they were protestants would'nt sit well with their declared non-sectarianism. And, as far as I know, the murder of innocent men for their religion is just that-the murder of innocent men-whether it is carried out in reprisal for some other murder of innocents or any other reason.

"Billy Fox was killed by the OIRA ".
The five men convicted for the murder were all PIRA men.

"Bayardo Bar was a loyalist bar used by active UVF members."

So? Did they attempt to find out if UVF men were inside at that time? Did they know if any were inside or did they even care? They just machine-gunned an entire bar killing four innocents with only one UVF man. An acceptable ratio in your eyes?

TheRealBoss · 26-11-2008 10:24am

RSF Cill Dara wrote: »

less than 30% of IRA victims were innocent, compared to the british army 60% .

Oh !!! .... so that makes it alright then.

Fratton Fred · 26-11-2008 12:12pm

RSF Cill Dara wrote: »

Sorry but can i have a link to your "facts" ? your "facts" are down right laughable. less than 30% of IRA victims were innocent, compared to the british army 60% .

kingsmill was not an IRA attack! it was a response to the killing of 6 innocent irish men . kingsmill was an anger attack by locals .

Billy Fox was killed by the OIRA .

Bayardo Bar was a loyalist bar used by active UVF members.

What about Le Mon restaurent
what about Bloody friday
What About Warrington
What about Jean McConville
What about Harrods
What About Eniskillen
What about the Sussex Arms Pub
What About Victoria Station
What about Proxy Bombing

Guildford, Birmingham, Woolwich........

These are just a few where innocent people were killed, there are loads more and loads more examples where innocent people somehow escaped death, I mean, what if one of the mortars fired at Heathrow had hit a plane? it could have killed everyone on board.

Do you have any pathetic excuses for them, or were they all "Legitimate" targets as well?

Don;t try and kid yourself the IRA tried to avoid civilians, they were/are a terrorist organisation. It tried to achieve its goals by creating fear and terror amongst the general public through a bombing campaign aimed at the general public.

McArmalite · 26-11-2008 6:37pm

Stekelly wrote: »

Ah well that makes it all better. The IRA were just sticking up for the poor Kenyans and Cypiots.

Just a pity they didnt decide suicide bombing was a better course to go.

Only a wee state like ours can produce the kind of hypocritical mindset that when someone replies to a comment from an English unionist drawing attention to britain's slaughtering innocents in it's colonial wars - and the only critical word you have is for the IRA ??

Its a slavish mindset which automatically assumes its the IRA who should be in some way blamed for everything, including britains mass murder in countries like India, Kenya etc as opposed to those of us who highlight britain's slaughter of innocents on a vastly greater scale than the IRA could ever come close to - even if they wanted.

ilkhanid wrote: »

This kind of bizarre "logic" might be rationalized (to a small degree,mind) if the IRA spent their time murdering British civilians. But they did'nt, most of the people they killed were Irish. So trying to excuse this by spurious references to British crimes of the past-real or imagined-is just plain ridiculous.

Below are some stats from the CAIN* organisation.

" if the IRA spent their time murdering British civilians." As can be seen from the above stats, 35.9% of all killings by Republicans (738) took the lives of civilians, while 52.9% of all killings by your ' heros ' the security forces (190) took the lives of civilians. As for the loyalists, well, they were just an unoffical wing of the brits. But doubtless you wouldn't have an accusing denouncement for your ' heros ' - in or out of a britsh uniform.

" But they did'nt, most of the people they killed were Irish. " Wrong again :rolleyes:. Republicans killed 1318 combatants, the vast, vast majority of them I think you'll agree were in the british forces, hence they were british, not Irish.

" So trying to excuse this by spurious references to British crimes of the past-real or imagined-is just plain ridiculous. " Well folks, can you get a more perverted kind of bizarre "logic" than that ?? Spot the unionist time yet again, no prizes as usual

Civilians killed , " 85.6% of Loyalist killings (873), 52.9% by the security forces (190) and 35.9% of all killings by Republicans (738) took the lives of civilians between 1969 and 2001. "

Combatants killed " Republicans killed 1318 combatants, the security forces killed 192 and the Loyalists killed 147. "
* http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/index.html

McArmalite · 26-11-2008 6:55pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

completely off topic and not related to this thread. there's a British Empire thread where you can "Pontificate" as much as like.

Your the one who introduced the topic of slaughtering innocents for a living in post #324, not me.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What about Le Mon restaurent
what about Bloody friday
What About Warrington
What about Jean McConville
What about Harrods
What About Eniskillen
What about the Sussex Arms Pub
What About Victoria Station
What about Proxy Bombing

Guildford, Birmingham, Woolwich........

These are just a few where innocent people were killed, there are loads more and loads more examples where innocent people somehow escaped death, I mean, what if one of the mortars fired at Heathrow had hit a plane? it could have killed everyone on board.

Do you have any pathetic excuses for them, or were they all "Legitimate" targets as well?

Don;t try and kid yourself the IRA tried to avoid civilians, they were/are a terrorist organisation. It tried to achieve its goals by creating fear and terror amongst the general public through a bombing campaign aimed at the general public.

What about ,what about, what about..... and this coming from the fella commonest reply to anyone when they raise the issue of british atrocities in Ireland is....... " Here we go again, more whataboutry ".

And this when the brits are engaged in an ongoing campaign slaughtering God knows thousands of children in Iraq and Afghanistan. But you see, in the patriotic brit mindset, they happen to be black haired, brown eyed, tan skinned Arabs/Fuzzie Wuzzies/Maori's/natives or whatever, and all of them combined do not add up to one child killed by the IRA.

Doubtless we are in for a lecture on how the brits taught the fuzzy wuzzys a thing or too about british civilization with the aid of a trusty Martini Henry and some great british pluck, etc, etc. It's called the britsh sense of fairplay, something their very proud of.

Fratton Fred · 26-11-2008 10:52pm

Actually Mac, it was Tar.Alderion who mentioned slaughtering of innocents in post 320, RSF seems to think the IRA did not.

would you mind telling me exactly what the **** Iraq has to do with this discussion, or is the fact that Britain carried out some attrocities in Iraq an excuse for strapping a flame thrower to a restaurent and incinerating the innocent people inside. It appears you seem to think it is.

Would you care to condemn some of the above attrocities I mentioned above?

Fratton Fred · 26-11-2008 10:57pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Civilians killed , " 85.6% of Loyalist killings (873), 52.9% by the security forces (190) and 35.9% of all killings by Republicans (738) took the lives of civilians between 1969 and 2001

So the IRA killed nearly four time more civilians then the British Army. You must be so proud of your heroes.

melbourne · 26-11-2008 11:12pm

RSF Cill Dara wrote: »

Sorry but can i have a link to your "facts" ? your "facts" are down right laughable. less than 30% of IRA victims were innocent, compared to the british army 60% .

kingsmill was not an IRA attack! it was a response to the killing of 6 innocent irish men . kingsmill was an anger attack by locals .

Billy Fox was killed by the OIRA .

Bayardo Bar was a loyalist bar used by active UVF members.

Good counter arguement, "Bayardo Bar was a loyalist bar used by active UVF members", alot of thought has obviously went into that one, bars sure are places that the general public do not tend to frequent on a regular basis, and back to the original post of Bobbie Sands Street, was he not imprisoned on terrorist charges?

ilkhanid · 27-11-2008 12:07am

"Republicans killed 1318 combatants, the vast, vast majority of them I think you'll agree were in the british forces, hence they were british, not Irish."
If they were born and bred in Ireland then they were Irish, even if they had an allegiance to Britain. That's the problem is'nt it? A million Irish people have an allegiance to Britain :eek:. Most members of what the IRA called "crown forces" were not British soldiers from Bradford, Devon or Slough,but UDR or RUC men,Irish men from the neighbouring townland or street. They were not some kind of occupying power from across the sea but men defending,by fair means or foul, their own place as they saw it. The PIRA mindset (although recently it has finally become a little more sophisticated....although not to you apparently) continues to see this as a struggle against an alien occupier and not what it is -and was in 1921 too,to a degree-a civil war. Or rather a civil struggle, as most of what happened had little to do with war

As for this drivel:
"as no army targets civilians, except perhaps those in the American,Israeli or british army".
A perfect example of standard cod 'anti-imperialist', pseudo-leftist,hyperbole in which the "west" in general and the anglosphere in particular are the source of all evil in the world and everbody else are nice guys. You must live in a cave,and not have looked at a newspaper in a long, long time. The last time I looked there was and has been in the recent past,plenty of targeting of civilians from-to name just a round ten-the Rwandan,Algerian,Sudanese,Russian,Zimbabwean,Serbian,Croat, Chinese,Indonesian and Burmese armies.

Lastly " Spot the unionist time yet again, no prizes as usual..." I was born and continue to live in the Republic of Ireland.

McArmalite · 30-11-2008 2:32pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Actually Mac, it was Tar.Alderion who mentioned slaughtering of innocents in post 320, RSF seems to think the IRA did not.

God give me patience. For the third time, you brought up the subject of "the slaughtering of innocents for a living" on post #324 :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred wrote: »

would you mind telling me exactly what the **** Iraq has to do with this discussion, or is the fact that Britain carried out some attrocities in Iraq an excuse for strapping a flame thrower to a restaurent and incinerating the innocent people inside. It appears you seem to think it is.

Britian has not carried out some but thousands of attrocities as well you know it. But as usual we'll get the britian the benign, benevolent international policeman etc, etc, etc.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Would you care to condemn some of the above attrocities I mentioned above?

Well Fred if you can show me by example and start to condemn mass murder perpetrated by britain in countries like Iraq, India, Kenya etc on a vastly greater scale than the IRA could ever come close to - even if they wanted, I'm sure it will enlighten me to take a different view.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the IRA killed nearly four time more civilians then the British Army. You must be so proud of your heroes.

No the point of the stats is to show that the IRA killed proportionately a lower number of civilians than the offical brit forces did, over half of those killed by the brits were civilains.

And since the loyalists were little else but the unoffical wing of the brit murder machine, between both of them they managaed to kill the majority of civilians. You must be so proud of your heroes.

" 85.6% of Loyalist killings (873), 52.9% by the security forces (190) and 35.9% of all killings by Republicans (738) took the lives of civilians between 1969 and 2001

McArmalite · 30-11-2008 2:56pm

ilkhanid wrote: »

If they were born and bred in Ireland then they
were Irish, even if they had an allegiance to Britain.

Jayus, how many times does it have to be stated, and how many times do the unionists have to state it themselves, - THEY ARE bRITISH :rolleyes:

ilkhanid wrote: »

That's the problem is'nt it? A million Irish people have an allegiance to Britain

AGAIN, they are not Irish, they are bRITISH.

And it's one of the great myths of unionism that their is a " million " of them, their isn't, their never has been and on current trends, by the time their will be a million of them, the nationalist population in the six counties will have outpassed them

:)

ilkhanid wrote: »

Most members of what the IRA called "crown forces" were not British soldiers from Bradford, Devon or Slough,but UDR or RUC men,Irish men from the neighbouring townland or street.

Oh Gawd :rolleyes: If they are in the british forces, defending british occupation, they are british.

ilkhanid wrote: »

They were not some kind of occupying power from across the sea but men defending,by fair means or foul, their own place as they saw it.

Since your obviously so sympathic to them, you must have thought about joining say, the UDR yourself ?

ilkhanid wrote: »

The PIRA mindset (although recently it has finally become a little more sophisticated....although not to you apparently) continues to see this as a struggle against an alien occupier and not what it is -and was in 1921 too,to a degree-a civil war. Or rather a civil struggle, as most of what happened had little to do with war

Here we go again, britian the benign, benevolent peacekeeper who acted at all times in a neutral manner wtih nothing but the best intentions for the OIrsh if they could only become a bit agreeable among themselves........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ilkhanid wrote: »

Lastly " Spot the unionist time yet again, no prizes as usual..." I was born and continue to live in the Republic of Ireland.

Conor Cruise O'Brien, Sir Anthony O'Reilly, Ruth Dudley Edwards etc were born and continue to live in the Republic of Ireland, still unionists to the core nevertheless.

ilkhanid · 30-11-2008 9:46pm

"Jayus, how many times does it have to be stated, and how many times do the unionists have to state it themselves, - THEY ARE bRITISH "

Geography lesson#1.If you live in America, you are American. If you live in Britain you are British. If you live in Ireland you are Irish.
Even Wolfe Tone, Patrick Pearse and-God between us and all harm-Gerry himself regards these people as Irish.

"one of the great myths of unionism that their is a " million " of them"
All right then,maybe there are only 920 00 or 850 000, A lot of them at any rate.

"If they are in the british forces, defending british occupation, they are british."
No, they are Irishmen serving with the British forces. The 25 000 Irishmen that died in World War One did'nt turn into British soldiers in France and Flanders. And if they are serving in their own land, then they can hardly be "occupying" it, at least not in any sense that you mean.

"Since your obviously so sympathic to them, you must have thought about joining say, the UDR yourself ?"
I live in the Republic, so I was hardly going to join any force away from my home, on any side. I have no more sympathy for them than the next man, and none at all for those of them that broke the law in pursuit of political objectives, but I do recognize that they have the right to their own allegiance and loyalties and the right to live under a political dispensation of their choosing, subject to the law.

"Here we go again, britian the benign, benevolent peacekeeper who acted at all times in a neutral manner wtih nothing but the best intentions for the OIrsh if they could only become a bit agreeable among themselves........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"

And your notion of a malign British puppetmaster cunningly manipulating the strings of both sides-sides that would be the greatest of buddies without the influence of perfidious Albion- to keep them fighting each other,or of a Britain utterly dedicated to the Unionist cause and implacably anti-Irish is just as much a simplistic caricature of history as the one you deride above with such sarcasm. Notwithstanding any actions of Britain this was always a civil war. It was only when Sinn Fein began to move beyond the notion that the Unionists were only Britain's straw men and recognized the need to engage with them that Republicanism began to live in the real world. But it appears that the scales have yet to fall from some eyes here.;)

"Conor Cruise O'Brien, Sir Anthony O'Reilly, Ruth Dudley Edwards etc were born and continue to live in the Republic of Ireland, still unionists to the core nevertheless."

I am not a Unionist, and if I lived in Northern Ireland, I would probably vote Alliance or SDLP, but that's not bad company. Better than Mary lou McDonald and "slab" Murphy anyway.:D

Shutuplaura · 01-12-2008 9:54am

This old thread eh!

Slightly off topic but has anyone seen Hunger? Whadda think? I read a review that said according to ex=prisoners the only unrealistic thing about it was the silence in the prison wings - in reality there was constant shouting, banter etc.

philologos · 01-12-2008 10:00am

I don't see why we need any recognition of him to be honest. He was arrested for possession of firearms I thought? Then he hunger striked so that he and his IRA comrades could have better rights than the rest of the prison populace. Surely if prison was so bad, he would have campaigned for these rights for all prisoners whether "political" or not. I just don't see any reason to give him hero status.

Shutuplaura · 01-12-2008 10:30am

Thanks Jakkass but the question was more do you think it will happen more than do you want it to happen or do you think its right that it will happen.

Fratton Fred · 01-12-2008 10:59am

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

A question. Did Mr Sands believe that 'the slaughter of the innocent was necessitated by his desire for a change in the administrative arrangements under which his homeland was governed.' and have a speech about it?

RSF Cill Dara wrote: »

slaughter of inocents? could you explain? MP Bobby Sands did not support the british army(slaughter of inocent) as he was a member of the IRA

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

As in he had no problem killing innocent people to further his goals. I am quoting a review on the film about him, Hunger.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

err, are you trying to imply the IRA did not slaughter innocents? it is what they did for a living.

McArmalite wrote: »

God give me patience. For the third time, you brought up the subject of "the slaughtering of innocents for a living" on post #324 :rolleyes:

there, is that better or would you like me to explain some of the longer words?

this thread is not about the British Army, it is about whether or not a man who was part of a terrorist organisation that targetted civilians will ever get a street named after him in Dublin.

horseflesh · 01-12-2008 11:11am

I very much doubt it, and sincerely hope not.
He died like the dog he was.

RSF Cill Dara · 01-12-2008 12:07pm

ilkhanid wrote: »

"less than 30% of IRA victims were innocent, compared to the british army 60% "
Even taken at face value that is a ghastly figure,kiling nearly a third of innocents in their "war". But they killed a lot more than anybody else and their (and your) definition of what constitutes 'innocence' is twisted.PIRA considered people who had been in the RUC in the past as targets,as well as people who worked for the authorities in any (even distrubuting census forms!) capacity,all judicary,families of security-force members,prison officers,businessmen-even foreigners-who ran industry in the North,Unionist politicians,people who drank in bars frequented by loyalists or the security-forces,etc etc. Probably added together this might make up a quarter of the population..all of them "guilty" by this foul definition.

"kingsmill was not an IRA attack! it was a response to the killing of 6
innocent irish men . kingsmill was an anger attack by locals ".

Aah. Angry locals? No hunting rifles or shotguns? Just locals who have precise intelligence of the buses routine, who happened to get hold of machine-guns at short notice, leave no trace and vanish. Of course they were PIRA, but since the dead PIRA are buried under a green-white-and-orange flag and mouth platitudes about uniting "protestant,catholic,and dissenter,(a phrase spoken by Wolfe Tone, a Protestant Irishman) slaughtering harmless men because they were protestants would'nt sit well with their declared non-sectarianism. And, as far as I know, the murder of innocent men for their religion is just that-the murder of innocent men-whether it is carried out in reprisal for some other murder of innocents or any other reason.

The IRA denied responsibility for the killings. The Irish Republican Army has never initiated sectarian killings.kingsmil was disgusting and any real republican would say the same, i condemn the massacre of any inocent person.This was an attack by locals(some of which were in the IRA) as a response to the murder of 6 inocent Irish men .

30% , which includes british royle family , prision guards and bombs with warnings which went on reported e.g bloody friday.

No they are in no way legitimate targets. I dont no whether you were trying to be funny or just plan ignorant but either way it dosnt suit you

McArmalite · 01-12-2008 12:23pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there, is that better or would you like me to explain some of the longer words?

this thread is not about the British Army, it is about whether or not a man who was part of a terrorist organisation that targetted civilians will ever get a street named after him in Dublin.

:rolleyes: Again............your the one who brought up the "the slaughtering of innocents for a living" on post #324. I complemented you as nothing best describes the british army past and present.

Sands and thousands of Irishmen and women became invovled in the conflict because of britain's abuses and occuptation of the north east of the country. To leave them out in a discussion regarding Bobby Sands and his actions is only grasping at straws for excuses for the brits - as usual.

horseflesh wrote: »

I very much doubt it, and sincerely hope not.
He died like the dog he was.

Still you cannot find Nairac ?

RSF Cill Dara · 01-12-2008 12:30pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see why we need any recognition of him to be honest. He was arrested for possession of firearms I thought? Then he hunger striked so that he and his IRA comrades could have better rights than the rest of the prison populace. Surely if prison was so bad, he would have campaigned for these rights for all prisoners whether "political" or not. I just don't see any reason to give him hero status.

Yes, Bobby Sands and every republican soldier in prison should have been treated better as they were POW . Republican were treated worse than scumbags and drug dealers in prison. He went 66 days without food for something he believed in , that makes him a hero in my eyes.

McArmalite · 01-12-2008 12:30pm

ilkhanid wrote: »

"Jayus, how many times does it have to be stated, and how many times do the unionists have to state it themselves, - THEY ARE bRITISH "

Geography lesson#1.If you live in America, you are American. If you live in Britain you are British. If you live in Ireland you are Irish.
Even Wolfe Tone, Patrick Pearse and-God between us and all harm-Gerry himself regards these people as Irish.

"one of the great myths of unionism that their is a " million " of them"
All right then,maybe there are only 920 00 or 850 000, A lot of them at any rate.

"If they are in the british forces, defending british occupation, they are british."
No, they are Irishmen serving with the British forces. The 25 000 Irishmen that died in World War One did'nt turn into British soldiers in France and Flanders. And if they are serving in their own land, then they can hardly be "occupying" it, at least not in any sense that you mean.

"Since your obviously so sympathic to them, you must have thought about joining say, the UDR yourself ?"
I live in the Republic, so I was hardly going to join any force away from my home, on any side. I have no more sympathy for them than the next man, and none at all for those of them that broke the law in pursuit of political objectives, but I do recognize that they have the right to their own allegiance and loyalties and the right to live under a political dispensation of their choosing, subject to the law.

"Here we go again, britian the benign, benevolent peacekeeper who acted at all times in a neutral manner wtih nothing but the best intentions for the OIrsh if they could only become a bit agreeable among themselves........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"

And your notion of a malign British puppetmaster cunningly manipulating the strings of both sides-sides that would be the greatest of buddies without the influence of perfidious Albion- to keep them fighting each other,or of a Britain utterly dedicated to the Unionist cause and implacably anti-Irish is just as much a simplistic caricature of history as the one you deride above with such sarcasm. Notwithstanding any actions of Britain this was always a civil war. It was only when Sinn Fein began to move beyond the notion that the Unionists were only Britain's straw men and recognized the need to engage with them that Republicanism began to live in the real world. But it appears that the scales have yet to fall from some eyes here.;)

"Conor Cruise O'Brien, Sir Anthony O'Reilly, Ruth Dudley Edwards etc were born and continue to live in the Republic of Ireland, still unionists to the core nevertheless."

I am not a Unionist, and if I lived in Northern Ireland, I would probably vote Alliance or SDLP, but that's not bad company. Better than Mary lou McDonald and "slab" Murphy anyway.:D

ilkhanid wrote: »

Geography lesson#1.If you live in America, you are American. If you live in Britain you are British. If you live in Ireland you are Irish.

So Ian Paisley is an Irish nationalist ?? ( Ooops ,gotta go !!! )

RSF Cill Dara · 01-12-2008 12:36pm

McArmalite wrote: »

Still you cannot find Nairac ?

Robert Nairac ?

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

Comments