30 years ago today....

walshb · 01-03-2011 06:02PM

As much as I can admire the courage and resistance of Bobby and others like him, I always wonder why they didn't live for the cause?

seanybiker · 01-03-2011 06:03PM

Yisroel Handsome Preschooler wrote: »

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.

maybe I just couldn't give a crap about some scumbag deciding to go hungry. I don't respect the fool at all so I don't feel the need to take this seriously at all.

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 06:03PM

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Well at least you are a predictable fellow fred.

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

Why, what's the difference? Both believe in their cause and were prepared to kill and die for it.

Sunnyisland · 01-03-2011 06:04PM

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.

When have you ever seen Irish criminals willing to die for what they believe in ?,criminals as in Dublin & limerick gangs are in it for money,nothing else Whether you agree or not what was /is happening in the six counties is a long story of occupation and persecution against a minority people in that part of our country,common criminals they certainly were not.

Tomebagel · 01-03-2011 06:04PM

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.

They stood up for what was wrong.

Buceph · 01-03-2011 06:06PM

Notorious97 wrote: »

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

Peaceful methods have worked, in many situations, around the world. I would like to think that had I been in the same, desperate situation many in the north found themselves in, that I would have maintained my devotion to peaceful methods. When I look at the seventies in the north, I'm not sure if I would have, so I try not to judge the people who did things differently. That being said, I wasn't alive in the seventies, I was in the 80s and first gained understanding of the north in the 90s. And at the point, violence seemed stupid. The violence of that time I can't condone or understand.

Pompey Magnus · 01-03-2011 06:07PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why, what's the difference? Both believe in their cause and were prepared to kill and die for it.

If that is your criteria then you can equally apply the Sadiq Khan comparison to British soldiers in N.I. at the time.

who the fug · 01-03-2011 06:08PM

Bobby Sands, going by what he wrote a very interesting intelligent person, couldn't give a toss for the cause he died for.

major bill · 01-03-2011 06:09PM

Reading threads like these and the smart answers back how they were petty criminals bla bla bla makes me realise how fcuking up their own arse and pig ignorant some irish people have become over the years.. is it any wonder our sovereignty is all but gone...but sure its ok we grew up down here they lived up there and the terrorist status they have been giving by the british government has filtered down south and become acceptable to most Irish people who dont even realise that the troubles may not have even started had the unionist government showed some compassion towards the other half that they ruled over.

problemchimp · 01-03-2011 06:09PM

seanybiker wrote: »

maybe I just couldn't give a crap about some scumbag deciding to go hungry. I don't respect the fool at all so I don't feel the need to take this seriously at all.

On that note I shall bow out and pray to fuuck you fall off your bike and bang your head!

danbohan · 01-03-2011 06:09PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

really? So what's your opinion on the IRA army council ordered the strike to continue despite the hunger strikers getting more concessions than they expected.

I believe it was the last six that were sacrificed so "da cause" could get more publicity. There would probably have been more if it wasn't for the brave actions of the strikers families.

There would probably have been more if it wasn't for the brave actions of the strikers families.

and their probably would have been none if not for the inhumanity and outright racism of mrs thatcher the british prime minster , but i suppose nothing else should have been expected from the british as they had been murdering irish people for hundreds of years

Chris P. Bacon · 01-03-2011 06:13PM

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYqiPcJWgkM

sbsquarepants · 01-03-2011 06:15PM

seamus wrote: »

What war?
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.

That's a bit naive don't you think?
Talking seals all deals at the end of the day. WW2 was ended by a discussion, but it's a bit simplistic to argue that the discussion could or would have been held without the carnage that went before. The north is no different.
All wars are ended by "gentlemen" sitting around a table, they're started that way too.
And as for being viewed as heroes, i was only a kid when the hunger strikes were going on, i'm 36 now, but i do remember them happening and one of my most vivid memories from that time is a string of crosses stretching across the road in walkinstown each representing a hunger striker who died. From then untill now i have never seen anything or anyone that has come close to matching what those men done in terms of sheer bravery and determination. If that's not the very definition of heroic then what is?
The word hero is used too loosely these days. Those men are real heroes.

Hannibal · 01-03-2011 06:18PM

gigino wrote: »

Ordinary scumbag criminals were better, they did not belong to terrorist organisations which went around bombing women and children + sniping people in the back while retired.

Didnt know the hunger strikers were in the British army...

Fremen · 01-03-2011 06:21PM

not yet wrote: »

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

The civil war ended almost NINETY years ago. There's almost no-one from that era left alive. And yet people still have that awful attitide - the attitude that caused Ireland to have two major parties with almost identical policies, and no meaningful opposition.

Get over it. Jesus.

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 06:22PM

Yisroel Handsome Preschooler wrote: »

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

I agree with a lot of your sentiment here, but the problem I have is this.

There is a constant glorification of people who died for "the cause" and quite often excuses made for the atrocities they commited. You know the ones, they tried to warn people, but the phone box wasn't working, or it was an army radio that set off the bomb, or even that the RUC could have stopped it but MI6 didn't pass on the info.

We all recognise this generally as people dealing with things in their own mind, but somewhere, kids are reading it and thinking it is noble and grand to stick it to the Brits.

All this hero worship of people like Sands gives kids the message that it is ok to continue and kill a few PSNI officers.

Wibbs · 01-03-2011 06:27PM

seamus wrote: »

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.

Whatever about heroes you're cracked in the head

if you reckon they achieved nothing. I agree with Maikomi on this. There's no way in hell the UK would have even gotten involved in the first place had the peaceful route continued. A bunch of folks singing we shall overcome is damned brave, but without hurting oppressors in the pocket or the heart, you will not get feet under conference tables. Oh sure there would be hand wringing and protestations but ultimately fcuk all would have happened(Like Jack Lynch mentioned earlier).

Michael Collins et al forced the British government to the table because of the killings and the disruption. If they had been protesting and marching with banners we'd still be doffing our caps to Lizzie 2.

Gandhi no doubt some will cry? Nope. Yes the peaceful mass protests had an effect, more of an effect was the violence that broke out. Both made India uneconomic to keep. Ordinary Indians had quite a bit of economic power. Enough to hurt the empire. More than the vast majority of working class Catholics had(and a lest we forget a large chunk of working class Protestants too). Oh yea and world war two didn't help.

Armalite diplomacy, like gunboat diplomacy works. Sure you need to talk to hammer out an equitable peace, but without the bullet you're unlikely to get the ballot.

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 06:28PM

danbohan wrote: »

There would probably have been more if it wasn't for the brave actions of the strikers families.

and their probably would have been none if not for the inhumanity and outright racism of mrs thatcher the british prime minster , but i suppose nothing else should have been expected from the british as they had been murdering irish people for hundreds of years

I've never killed any Irish people and no one I know has. From what I can tell from my ancestors they didn't either as they didn't go near Ireland, with the exception of some family from macroom. So why do you say the British gave been killing the Irish for years. I could quite easily say the same about the Irish Killiney.g British people for years as well.

Still, I suppose if you demonise the whole country, it makes it easier when an organisation you love so dearly kills children (even unborn ones) from there.

Sunnyisland · 01-03-2011 06:28PM

Fremen wrote: »

The civil war ended almost NINETY years ago. There's almost no-one from that era left alive. And yet people still have that awful attitude - the attitude that caused Ireland to have two major parties with almost identical policies, and no meaningful opposition.

Get over it. Jesus.

This is not about the civil war as such but what happened afterwards because of the situation and partition of this country, which to many people still exits as we speak.

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 06:30PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Whatever about heroes you're cracked in the head if you reckon they achieved nothing. I agree with Maikomi on this. There's no way in hell the UK would have even gotten involved in the first place had the peaceful route continued. A bunch of folks singing we shall overcome is damned brave, but without hurting oppressors in the pocket or the heart, you will not get feet under conference tables. Oh sure there would be hand wringing and protestations but ultimately fcuk all would have happened(Like Jack Lynch mentioned earlier).

Michael Collins et al forced the British government to the table because of the killings and the disruption. If they had been protesting and marching with banners we'd still be doffing our caps to Lizzie 2.

Gandhi no doubt some will cry? Nope. Yes the peaceful mass protests had an effect, more of an effect was the violence that broke out. Both made India uneconomic to keep. Ordinary Indians had quite a bit of economic power. Enough to hurt the empire. More than the vast majority of working class Catholics had(and a lest we forget a large chunk of working class Protestants too). Oh yea and world war two didn't help.

Armalite diplomacy, like gunboat diplomacy works. Sure you need to talk to hammer out an equitable peace, but without the bullet you're unlikely to get the ballot.

Actually I think you'll find war debts and a socialist government were the biggest contributors to Indian independence.

Micky Dolenz · 01-03-2011 06:31PM

I understand that this is a very emotive subject, any and all flaming will not be tolerated.

Sunnyisland · 01-03-2011 06:33PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Actually I think you'll find war debts and a socialist government were the biggest contributors to Indian independence.

GandhiMohandas Gandhi was imprisoned in 1922, 1930, 1933 and 1942. Because of Gandhi's stature around the world, British authorities were loath to allow him to die in their custody. It is likely Britain's reputation would have suffered as a result of such an event. Gandhi engaged in several famous hunger strikes to protest British rule of India. Fasting was a non-violent way of communicating the message and sometimes dramatically achieve the reason for the protest. This was keeping with the rules of Satyagraha.
In addition to Gandhi, various others have used the hunger strike option during the Indian independence movement. Such figures include Jatin Das and Bhagat Singh.
After Indian Independence, freedom fighter Potti Sreeramulu used hunger strikes to get a separate state for Telugu-speaking people.

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 06:39PM

realies wrote: »

GandhiMohandas Gandhi was imprisoned in 1922, 1930, 1933 and 1942. Because of Gandhi's stature around the world, British authorities were loath to allow him to die in their custody. It is likely Britain's reputation would have suffered as a result of such an event. Gandhi engaged in several famous hunger strikes to protest British rule of India. Fasting was a non-violent way of communicating the message and sometimes dramatically achieve the reason for the protest. This was keeping with the rules of Satyagraha.
In addition to Gandhi, various others have used the hunger strike option during the Indian independence movement. Such figures include Jatin Das and Bhagat Singh.
After Indian Independence, freedom fighter Potti Sreeramulu used hunger strikes to get a separate state for Telugu-speaking people.

Would it be fair to say then, that Ghandi's peaceful demonstrations brought the issue to the fore and WW11 and the labour government is what forced the issue. An armed struggle had little impact on the situation.

danbohan · 01-03-2011 06:40PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've never killed any Irish people and no one I know has. From what I can tell from my ancestors they didn't either as they didn't go near Ireland, with the exception of some family from macroom. So why do you say the British gave been killing the Irish for years. I could quite easily say the same about the Irish Killiney.g British people for years as well.

Still, I suppose if you demonise the whole country, it makes it easier when an organisation you love so dearly kills children (even unborn ones) from there.

sorry fred , i got mixed up it was Brittaney that occupied our country and carried out the massacres not the British , cromwell was a French prince not British . the parachute regiment that murdered people on bloody sunday were actually the French foreign legion in disguise , i should have realized that the British have been nothing but peace loving hippies interested in nothing but world peace , you can deny history fred unfortunately you cannot re write it

Fratton Fred · 01-03-2011 06:42PM

It is a shame that people like Bobby Sands get hero worshipped and people like Gordon Wilson get ignored.

Amazotheamazing · 01-03-2011 06:45PM

People say the hunger strikers wanted to keep going, just curious as to how much mental capacity anyone has after going without food for such a length of time? Surely they were virtually comatose after a certain number of days? I doubt they were up debating the merits of continuing or not.

I'd sure they were ready to die but can't help but feel they were let die by their comrades for the publicity.

Wibbs · 01-03-2011 06:46PM

danbohan wrote: »

sorry fred , i got mixed up it was Brittaney that occupied our country and carried out the massacres not the British , cromwell was a French prince not British . the parachute regiment that murdered people on bloody sunday were actually the French foreign legion in disguise , i should have realized that the British have been nothing but peace loving hippies interested in nothing but world peace , you can deny history fred unfortunately you cannot re write it

You do know that many many thousands, hundreds of thousands of Irish men fought under the union flag and considered themselves part of Britain for hundreds of years. It's a lot more complex than you make it out.

major bill · 01-03-2011 06:50PM

Wibbs wrote: »

You do know that many many thousands, hundreds of thousands of Irish men fought under the union flag and considered themselves part of Britain for hundreds of years. It's a lot more complex than you make it out.

alot of these men it could be argued fought more or less for the money not out of loyalty to the crown!!!

arybvtcw0eolkf · 01-03-2011 06:51PM

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

People say the hunger strikers wanted to keep going, just curious as to how much mental capacity anyone has after going without food for such a length of time? Surely they were virtually comatose after a certain number of days? I doubt they were up debating the merits of continuing or not.

I'd sure they were ready to die but can't help but feel they were let die by their comrades for the publicity.

I'm not entering into this discussion again, except to day that if you have an interest in the hunger strike then you simply have to read 'Ten Men Dead: The Story of the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike'.

Even if you take nothing else away from it, you'll be surprised at the different motives the various men had for joining in the armed struggle.

And you'll be sicken, and saddened by the nature of their deaths.

Its a stunning read.

Wolfe Tone · 01-03-2011 06:51PM

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

People say the hunger strikers wanted to keep going, just curious as to how much mental capacity anyone has after going without food for such a length of time? Surely they were virtually comatose after a certain number of days? I doubt they were up debating the merits of continuing or not.

I'd sure they were ready to die but can't help but feel they were let die by their comrades for the publicity.

Heres what Laurence McKeown said about being on hunger strike:

You're very sleepy and very, very tired and you're sort of nodding off to sleep but something's telling you to keep waking up. This was the thing that kept everybody going through the hunger strike in trying to live or last out as long as possible. I knew death was close but I wasn't afraid to die - and it wasn't any sort of courageous or glorious thing. I think death would have been a release. You can never feel that way again. It's not like tiredness. It's an absolute, total, mental and physical exhaustion. It's literally like slipping into death.[6]

He took part in the hungerstrike and refused food for 70 days until his family intervened,

30 years ago today....

Comments