30 years ago today....

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 05:18PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Stay classy fred

Ok, as you asked nicely.

I'd still like your opinion on the last six to die though. By my reckoning, the IRA killed more hunger strikers than Thatcher did, but she gets all the blame.

Pompey Magnus · 01-03-2011 05:21PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How many innocent people did the old IRA target?

The Old IRA, in particular Michael Collins Twelve Apostles, killed civil servants and members of the public as well as British military personnel.

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 05:22PM

Yisroel Handsome Preschooler wrote: »

"the old IRA" - romanticized bullsh*t.

So my question to you was;

Was Kevin Barry a common criminal scumbag?.

You're probably asking the wrong person to be honest. But my initial reaction is that Kevin Barry died in very different times. So I wouldn't even draw parallels between the two to be honest.

Nodin · 01-03-2011 05:27PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You're probably asking the wrong person to be honest. But my initial reaction is that Kevin Barry died in very different times. So I wouldn't even draw parallels between the two to be honest.

Bullet behind the ear in 1921 - Soft tickle of a wee bit of lead.
Bullet behind the ear in 1985 - 'the horror, the horror...'

Irish Guitarist · 01-03-2011 05:29PM

Thirty years ago I would have only been five but I remember it. I thought it sounded stupid to think that anyone besides your mother would care if you didn't eat your dinner.

seamus · 01-03-2011 05:31PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

In your opinion is every person who has taken up arms in opposition to the ruling government been a "scumbag", or is it just if they have been caught that they become this?

Were Padraig Pearse and James Connolly a couple of scumbags?

Your comparison is invalid. Answer me this, why are the modern RIRA considered nothing but drug-dealers and scumbags yet the IRA of the 1970s considered heroes in many parts? Are they not similar organisations?

Yes they are, but the political landscape has changed. Just like it had changed immeasurably between Connolly's time and Sands's time.

While a lot has changed since the 1970's and certainly it was a ****ty time to be an Irishman in Northern Ireland (and sometimes in the UK), my point is that Sands appears to have been convicted of a bog standard and legitimate offence (i.e. was he or was he not in possession of an illegal firearm?) and therefore it's hard to see why he would be due any more rights than any other prisoner.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-03-2011 05:32PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You're probably asking the wrong person to be honest. But my initial reaction is that Kevin Barry died in very different times. So I wouldn't even draw parallels between the two to be honest.

Ok, I'm really reluctant to get too deeply into this..

How much different were those times?.

Remember both lived under British oppression - when Sand was born, and at the time when he got involved in republican activities Catholic Irish men and women were denied basic civil rights - neither Sands 'nor Barry were eligiable to vote, couldn't hold public office, couldn't serve in the public or civil service.. Were denied trial by juries - simply because of their religion, nationality and their oppressive governments.

I don't involve myself in romanticize BS, but lets call a spade a spade.. Both murdered innocents and killed oppressors alike.. There IS no difference between the 'Old IRA' and the Provisionals when it comes to murder and mayhem.

So, is Kevin Barry a common criminal scumbag?.

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 05:32PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The Old IRA, in particular Michael Collins Twelve Apostles, killed civil servants and members of the public as well as British military personnel.

Did they? I don't remember them, but I do remember the Balcombe street gang and the murder of Ross McWhirter.

Wolfe Tone · 01-03-2011 05:33PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ok, as you asked nicely.

I'd still like your opinion on the last six to die though. By my reckoning, the IRA killed more hunger strikers than Thatcher did, but she gets all the blame.

No one forced them to strike. Nothing did except the situation the British government put them in.

seanybiker · 01-03-2011 05:35PM

Yisroel Handsome Preschooler wrote: »

So, is Kevin Barry a common criminal scumbag?.

he's not a scumbag he's a his driver. Although I imagine your not on about my next door neighbour.

Pompey Magnus · 01-03-2011 05:35PM

seamus wrote: »

and therefore it's hard to see why he would be due any more rights than any other prisoner.

A little thing called "The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" is why.

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 05:35PM

Yisroel Handsome Preschooler wrote: »

Ok, I'm really reluctant to get too deeply into this..

How much different were those times?.

Remember both lived under British oppression - when Sand was born, and at the time when he got involved in republican activities Catholic Irish men and women were denied basic civil rights - neither Sands 'nor Barry were eligiable to vote, couldn't hold public office, couldn't serve in the public or civil service.. Were denied trial by juries - simply because of their religion, nationality and their oppressive governments.

I don't involve myself in romanticize BS, but lets call a spade a spade.. Both murdered innocents and oppressors alike.. There IS no difference between the 'Old IRA' and the Provisionals when it comes to murder and mayhem.

So, is Kevin Barry a common criminal scumbag?.

ok, if you insist on drawing parallels, then yes he was, but as I said, I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm not emotionally attached to either campaign.

Notorious97 · 01-03-2011 05:37PM

seamus wrote: »

Your comparison is invalid. Answer me this, why are the modern RIRA considered nothing but drug-dealers and scumbags yet the IRA of the 1970s considered heroes in many parts? Are they not similar organisations?

Yes they are, but the political landscape has changed. Just like it had changed immeasurably between Connolly's time and Sands's time.

While a lot has changed since the 1970's and certainly it was a ****ty time to be an Irishman in Northern Ireland (and sometimes in the UK), my point is that Sands appears to have been convicted of a bog standard and legitimate offence (i.e. was he or was he not in possession of an illegal firearm?) and therefore it's hard to see why he would be due any more rights than any other prisoner.

Do you not see the comparisons though? Southern Ireland in 1916 Irish people were ruled by a foreign government, hence the rising to attempt to remove that foreign government and allow the Irish people govern themselves, 1970’s in NI was the same story for Irish people, oppressed, discrimination with jobs / social housing / religion etc.

Sands believed in freeing that region of Ireland, he was a member of the IRA, when he was caught he was charged as a common criminal, he was a prisoner of war, but Downing Street refused to acknowledge this status even though they did 5 years earlier.

How is he a common scumbag as you put it? Anybody who sympathises with him or supports him see him as a prisoner of war and a hero, rightly so.

RIP

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 05:37PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No one forced them to strike. Nothing did except the situation the British government put them in.

Err, the IRA army council forced them to strike.

Wolfe Tone · 01-03-2011 05:39PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

ok, if you insist on drawing parallels, then yes he was, but as I said, I'm the wrong person to ask. I'm not emotionally attached to either campaign.

Says the huge lover and admirer of the BA?

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 05:40PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Says the huge lover and admirer of the BA?

BORING.

Notorious97 · 01-03-2011 05:40PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Err, the IRA army council forced them to strike.

He went on strike of his own accord, nobody forced him.

Did they stand over him and make sure he didn’t receive food?

Jimmy the Wheel · 01-03-2011 05:41PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Err, the IRA army council forced them to strike.

They didn't want them striking at all in the first place.

They did prolong it when they saw the support, both in Ireland and internationally, that the strike was getting.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-03-2011 05:41PM

seanybiker wrote: »

he's not a scumbag he's a his driver. Although I imagine your not on about my next door neighbour.

See, a lot of the time I don't agree with the OP's politics but I do give credit to the young man for posting a topic like this here knowing that its going to draw stupid comments like this (and other's in this discussion).

I don't have his patience for suffering this kind of crap, and its the main reason why I reluctantly get drawn into this discussions.

The OP has an older, wiser head on young shoulders... Me, I've a hot, cranky old head on mine - short of patience.

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 05:44PM

Notorious97 wrote: »

He went on strike of his own accord, nobody forced him.

Did they stand over him and make sure he didn’t receive food?

So you really think the last six had an option? They wanted to end the hunger strike but the IRA army council ordered them to continue.

Even presuming that they wouldn't have been executed for disobeyed orders, the army council is at least complicit in their deaths.

They died for nothing more than a Gerry Adams PR stunt.

problemchimp · 01-03-2011 05:48PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You're probably asking the wrong person to be honest. But my initial reaction is that Kevin Barry died in very different times. So I wouldn't even draw parallels between the two to be honest.

Were they really that different? Imagine you are a child in Belfast lucky enough to live in a council house where soldiers drive and crawl up your street every day. Your Father comes in one evening with his face smashed in by the "Police" for no reason whatsoever. He can't get a job because he is a Catholic so your poor Mother has Fuuck all to feed the kids with. In the meantime, another kid (let's call him Timothy) lives about 5 miles away from you and his father has a decent job and is a protestant. And I'm only talking about working class Timothy by the way.As you and Timothy grow up in parallel lives, you find it really hard to survive as, like your Father before you, you have fuuck all hope of earning a wage because you are a Catholic. This makes you a bit angry because now you are at an age where you realise Timothy has a much better chance in life because he is a protestant. In the meantime, like your Father, you end up with your face smashed in by the Police for no reason. Would this make you angry? You also know that if you do the wrong thing, the forces who rule will come down on you like a ton of shiit and you will spend a long time in prison. Meanwhile the forces are colluding with Timothys people to help murder and burn the homes of your people. What do you do? Go to the Police? Wait for Jack Lynch to save you as he once said "We will not stand idly by and let this happen" as he stands idly by and lets it happen. I think you get the picture, just like the Libyans today or the Black South Africans did in the 80s and 90's you would get very very angry and that would be understable. So maybe Kevin Barry didn't live in such different times as say Bobby Sands or Raymond McCreesh.

Notorious97 · 01-03-2011 05:48PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you really think the last six had an option? They wanted to end the hunger strike but the IRA army council ordered them to continue.

Even presuming that they wouldn't have been executed for disobeyed orders, the army council is at least complicit in their deaths.

They died for nothing more than a Gerry Adams PR stunt.

They died for what they believed in. im sure they would tell you that themselves

seamus · 01-03-2011 05:49PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

A little thing called "The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" is why.

What war?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. From the British POV these are nothing more than terrorist seperatists and they never were. Hence there's no reason why they were due to be treated any differently to any other citizen of the state who'd been found guilty of a crime.

My real problem here is the portrayal of these people as heroes. What did the IRA achieve in their 30-odd year campaign of murder and terrorism? Zilch. Absolutely nothing.
Thousands died and at the end of the day, there was no surrender, there was no submission. At the end of the day, they stuck their arses on seats, feet under the table, and talking sealed the deal. Peaceful protest and discussion.
The true tragedy here is as Makikomi has painted it out - the misplaced loyalty, suffering and subsequent death of these hungers strikers served to reignite ignorant support behind the IRA and result in thousands of needless deaths which could have been prevented if they'd turned to peaceful and political methods of conflict instead of taking up arms.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-03-2011 05:51PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you really think the last six had an option? They wanted to end the hunger strike but the IRA army council ordered them to continue.

Even presuming that they wouldn't have been executed for disobeyed orders, the army council is at least complicit in their deaths.

They died for nothing more than a Gerry Adams PR stunt.

Actually if memory serves me correct.. Those men wanted to continue the hunger strikes, but it was their families who were under pressure from both the IRA army council and the British government, plus Father Faul the catholic priest who eventually wanted the men to come off the strikes.

In fact, Father Faul was largely responsible for bringing the strikes to an end - laying good old catholic guilt on the shoulders of the men's families.

not yet · 01-03-2011 05:53PM

OSI wrote: »

Never understood the heroic status bestowed upon the hunger strikers.

They saved nobodies lives, they achieved nothing great. They just died because they thought they should be classified as Political Prisoners rather than the criminals they were. By the same vein I could hold up a bank, and then demand political status as I was doing it out of opposition to the government.

Fine Gael party that way >.....enjoy richard

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 05:57PM

Notorious97 wrote: »

They died for what they believed in. im sure they would tell you that themselves

So did Mohammad Sidiq Khan.

Wolfe Tone · 01-03-2011 05:59PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So did Mohammad Sidiq Khan.

Well at least you are a predictable fellow fred.

Comparing Bobby Sands and co to the 7/7 suicide bombers...... ffs

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-03-2011 06:01PM

seamus wrote: »

The true tragedy here is as Makikomi has painted it out - the misplaced loyalty, suffering and subsequent death of these hungers strikers served to reignite ignorant support behind the IRA and result in thousands of needless deaths which could have been prevented if they'd turned to peaceful and political methods of conflict instead of taking up arms.

Don't be twisting my words!.

The British never gave anything up to anyone, 'not us, the Palestinians, the Kurds, the Indians - NO ONE without it being pried out of their stealing hands.

Don't get me wrong, I never supported the armed struggle. But then I have the luxury of being born down south at a time when I was never oppressed by anyone but Fianna Fail

I'm delighted there's finally a semblence of peace on this island. I hate that any one died for it - catholic, prod, Brit soldier or RUC man or woman.

But if I, and a lot of other's in this discussion were born and grew up at a time when we were denied even the right to vote I think this discussion would carry a completely different tone to it.

Anyway, I'd like to back out of this discussion now by wishing that we could all lay the past behind us and look to a future of peace between both communities and both countries..

Long live the queen

Notorious97 · 01-03-2011 06:01PM

seamus wrote: »

What war?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. From the British POV these are nothing more than terrorist seperatists and they never were. Hence there's no reason why they were due to be treated any differently to any other citizen of the state who'd been found guilty of a crime.

My real problem here is the portrayal of these people as heroes. What did the IRA achieve in their 30-odd year campaign of murder and terrorism? Zilch. Absolutely nothing.
Thousands died and at the end of the day, there was no surrender, there was no submission. At the end of the day, they stuck their arses on seats, feet under the table, and talking sealed the deal. Peaceful protest and discussion.
The true tragedy here is as Makikomi has painted it out - the misplaced loyalty, suffering and subsequent death of these hungers strikers served to reignite ignorant support behind the IRA and result in thousands of needless deaths which could have been prevented if they'd turned to peaceful and political methods of conflict instead of taking up arms.

What did it achieve?

Well for a start Catholics have better rights within the 6 counties, Republicans are in power sharing government within the 6 counties, there is no threat of a repeat of Bloody Sunday or Bally Murphy Massacre, the list goes on.

Alot of terrible things happened during this period, but i think Northern Ireland is in a much better place these days because of that war than it was before it. Oppress somebody enough and they will rise up, its human nature.

As for peaceful methods, sure they tried that in January 1972, i believe the civil rights march was well received by the British Army........

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 06:02PM

Yisroel Handsome Preschooler wrote: »

Actually if memory serves me correct.. Those men wanted to continue the hunger strikes, but it was their families who were under pressure from both the IRA army council and the British government, plus Father Faul the catholic priest who eventually wanted the men to come off the strikes.

In fact, Father Faul was largely responsible for bringing the strikes to an end - laying good old catholic guilt on the shoulders of the men's families.

the last six to die were ordered to continue by the IRA, that is pretty well documented.

The ones that later called off their strikes did so because their families stated publicly that as soon as the men lost consciousness they would agree to them being drip fed and would not let them die.

The IRA had nothing to do with ending it, as far as they were concerned they were as expendable as the people of Warrington.

30 years ago today....

Comments