nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Bobby Sands R.I.P. 5th May 1981

bobbysands81

Loved by many, scorned by a few but remembered by all.

How this country could do with someone like Bobby now.

"They have nothing in their whole imperial arsenal that can break the spirit of one Irishman who doesn’t want to be broken."

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RandomName2

SamHall wrote: »

The man wasn't a terrorist. The British themselves conceded to this fact when they ultimately granted political status to the prisoners.

Based on this alone, Your post couldn't be further from the truth.

Well Sands was certainly an active member of the PIRA.

Mind you, his conviction for murder was certainly very shaky; seemingly based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

But his protest apparently wasn't over his conviction, but rather part of the movement which opposed paramilitary members being treated as criminals.

So whether or not you believe that his protest had any merit will be largely predicated on whether you see the PIRA as criminals or soldiers.

Quite honestly, it's hard to say how an organisation which doesn't wear a uniform during operations or is represented by any government is an army, strictly speaking. Members like Sands were members of a state, their actions were against that state that they were citizens of, and they were convicted and imprisoned by that same state.

Remember that this is separate from the consideration of whether such people had due grievances. Seeing that they had been effectively disenfranchised by their state, they demonstrably did. But that still does not make them soldiers. How many solders become members of parliament of the country they are fighting against whilst they are POWs? Bobby Sands was clearly a civilian.

So while one may reflect upon his suffering, and his dedication to his cause, it is an altogether different thing to say that that suffering meant that he was right. Indeed, the man arguably, ultimately, became subsumed by the cause.

[Deleted User]

droidman123 wrote: »

The fact that you admit that you can't see what the big deal is confirms your ignorance of the topic.

I am just taking it for what it is.
He got caught committing a crime, went to prison and committed suicide there.

Anyone whose see some sort of glory in what he and others did are just apologists for murderers and criminals

pablomakaveli

SamHall wrote: »

You've heard about bloody Sunday, right? (For starters)

That was a tragedy carried out by idiots in the Para regiment. It wasn't the mandated way of dealing with disturbances.

one ill cat

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Well no they didnt. Their operations in NI did not include the objective of a campaign of terror.

The level of ignorance of this is quite scary.

Go Google - 'The B Specials', 'Bloody Sunday' and 'The Shankill Butchers' to get you started. It's been well documented & proven that the British government/army armed & provided intelligence to Loyalist terrorists. On Bloody Sunday they just opened fire themselves without getting anyone else to do their dirty work for them. But then you'd know that if you'd bothered watching any of the news around the huge inquiry into it, only a few years ago.

The discrimination was so bad in the 1980s that you can read all about it in independently published history text books. Text books I used for GCSE History, a UK level exam.

Sometimes the level of ignorance I encounter within this country about its own history is horrific.

Not to derail this thread but I suggest you at least look into what you're posting before making ignorant & clearly false statements.

[Deleted User]

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I am just taking it for what it is.
He got caught committing a crime, went to prison and committed suicide there.

Anyone whose see some sort of glory in what he and others did are just apologists for murderers and criminals

You should read some history books if you really think it was as simple as that.

pablomakaveli

one ill cat wrote: »

The level of ignorance of this is quite scary.

Go Google - 'The B Specials', 'Bloody Sunday' and 'The Shankill Butchers' to get you started. It's been well documented & proven that the British government/army armed & provided intelligence to Loyalist terrorists. On Bloody Sunday they just opened fire themselves without getting anyone else to do their dirty work for them. But then you'd know that if you'd bothered watching any of the news around the huge inquiry into it, only a few years ago.

The discrimination was so bad in the 1980s that you can read all about it in independently published history text books. Text books I used for GCSE History, a UK level exam.

Sometimes the level of ignorance I encounter within this country about its own history is horrific.

Not to derail this thread but I suggest you at least look into what you're posting before making ignorant & clearly false statements.

I'm aware of the B specials and Shankill Butchers but they weren't part of the British army. I've addressed Bloody Sunday above.

The discrimination you mention came from the Unionist side.

I'm in no way ignorant to the Troubles but i dont look at it solely through the Republican viewpoint either.

pablomakaveli

droidman123 wrote: »

You should read some history books if you really think it was as simple as that.

Would they be history books from the Republican view of events?

Some people on here think not abiding by the Republican version of events equals an ignorance of events.

Banjo String

pablomakaveli wrote: »

That was a tragedy carried out by idiots in the Para regiment. It wasn't the mandated way of dealing with disturbances.

They open fired, and shot dead fourteen innocent civil rights demonstrators

The regiment, and British govt covered up, and consistently lied about what happened for almost forty years afterward.

Your posts are so inaccurate I don't know where to begin tbh.

pablomakaveli

SamHall wrote: »

They open fired, and shot dead fourteen innocent civil rights demonstrators

The regiment, and British govt covered up, and consistently lied about what happened for almost forty years afterward.

Your posts are so inaccurate I don't know where to begin tbh.

How are they inaccurate?

I said opening fire like they did wasn't mandated and it wasn't.

I never said they were right in doing so either.

one ill cat

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I'm aware of the B specials and Shankill Butchers but they weren't part of the British army. I've addressed Bloody Sunday above.

The discrimination you mention came from the Unionist side.

I'm in no way ignorant to the Troubles but i dont look at it solely through the Republican viewpoint either.

They were funded/supported by the British, which is the point. Both sides committed horrific acts during the troubles, that's not being disputed from what I can see. But I really do think the British government's involvement in the whole mess is so very ignorantly overlooked.

Banjo String

pablomakaveli wrote: »

How are they inaccurate?

I said opening fire like they did wasn't mandated and it wasn't.

I never said they were right in doing so either.

The British govt's handling of the aftermath?

Do you think that was 'mandated'?

Hidalgo

The attention that Sands' funeral garnered highlighted the international interest in the hunger strikes.
All the big US networks sent crews to cover the funeral, ABC, NBC and CBS. Massive global attention

For the 10 hunger strikers that died however, 40 civilians were killed during the conflict that was fought on the merits of the hunger strikers.

pablomakaveli

SamHall wrote: »

The British govt's handling of the aftermath?

Do you think that was 'mandated'?

They certainly should have handled it better and the paras who opened fire should have been prosecuted.

But opening fire on civilians wasn't official policy and never was.

R P McMurphy

pablomakaveli wrote: »

How are they inaccurate?

I said opening fire like they did wasn't mandated and it wasn't.

I never said they were right in doing so either.

They deployed and used live rounds against a civil rights march, murdering civilians with impunity and plunging the six counties into turmoil. Mandated or not to open fire that day the british army was a catalyst to decades or chaos. Not to mention collusion, murdering and maiming children with rubber bullets and just plain harrassment of the civilian population. People were drawn into the Republican movement that would never have been involved if living a few counties over. To look at the number of ex ba personnel in prisons once they leave the army shows the caliber of the people in their ranks

Sunnyisland

Bobby sands was also an elected MP...After a highly polarised campaign, Sands narrowly won the seat on 9 April 1981, with 30,493 votes to 29,046 for the Ulster Unionist Party candidate Harry West—and also become the youngest MP at the time.[23]. However Sands died in prison less than a month afterwards, without ever having taken his seat in the Commons[24].
Following Sands' success, the British Government introduced the Representation of the People Act 1981 which prevents prisoners serving jail terms of more than one year in either the UK or the Republic of Ireland from being nominated as candidates in British elections.[25][26] This law was introduced in order to prevent the other hunger strikers from being elected to the British parliament.[27]

News of the death of Bobby Sands influenced the way in which political prisoners and the ANC in South Africa responded to their own situation, and inspired a new way of resistance.[38][39] Nelson Mandela was said to have been "directly influenced by Bobby Sands",[38] and instigated a successful Hunger Strike on Robben Island.

RIP Bobby Sands.

pablomakaveli

R P McMurphy wrote: »

They deployed and used live rounds against a civil rights march, murdering civilians with impunity and plunging the six counties into turmoil. Mandated or not to open fire that day the british army was a catalyst to decades or chaos. Not to mention collusion, murdering and maiming children with rubber bullets and just plain harrassment of the civilian population. People were drawn into the Republican movement that would never have been involved if living a few counties over. To look at the number of ex ba personnel in prisons once they leave the army shows the caliber of the people in their ranks

In a warzone soldiers will deploy with live rounds especially when the enemy (in this case the Provos) are also armed with live rounds.

Opening fire on civilians was wrong but it was an act of idiocy. Not a deliberate attempt to inflame the whole situation.

Your last line is just unsubstantiated republican propaganda.

dh0011

some in this thread have said that Bobby Sands was a terrorist. I disagree. Aside from the fact that he was living under a repressive regime in the North, where the government openly discriminated against catholic nationalists [dies anybody need to be reminded about bloody sunday or the B specials burning Catholic housing for fun], he inspired people worldwide. The Indian government and palestinian freedom fighters all mourned his loss.

A true Irish hero in my opinion. Ar dhies de a raibh a anam.

.jacksparrow.

Any man who stands by while their family is burned out of their house is a coward, but the people who judge them are the bigger cowards.

cameramonkey

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They had torture but they choose not to use it.

They tried that, it didnt work. You need to read a bit more history, get a bit of knowledge before you make ill informed comments.

Hidalgo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They certainly should have handled it better and the paras who opened fire should have been prosecuted.

But opening fire on civilians wasn't official policy and never was.

That's a bit of an understatement.
Even if opening fire wasn't official policy, the soldiers involved were acting on behalf of the British government as its military arm if you will

[Deleted User]

Its actually sad that this argument is even going on.in any other country bobby sands would be a hero and his anniversary would be celebrated accordingly. Even the easter rising celebrations is a low key affair every year,its disgusting.

cameramonkey

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. Everyone breaks under sustained torture. Everyone. Stop talking crap about alternate realities this is a serious subject.

Have you a link to prove this or did you make it up?

Hidalgo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

In a warzone soldiers will deploy with live rounds especially when the enemy (in this case the Provos) are also armed with live rounds.

Opening fire on civilians was wrong but it was an act of idiocy. Not a deliberate attempt to inflame the whole situation.

Your last line is just unsubstantiated republican propaganda.

It was a civil rights march

pablomakaveli

Hidalgo wrote: »

That's a bit of an understatement.
Even if opening fire wasn't official policy, the soldiers involved were acting on behalf of the British government as its military arm if you will

They were acting on their own when they opened fire. When they did that they were no longer acting on behalf of the British government or the military.

pablomakaveli

Hidalgo wrote: »

It was a civil rights march

In an area where there were armed Provos.

Rascasse

realies wrote: »

Bobby sands was also an elected MP...After a highly polarised campaign, Sands narrowly won the seat on 9 April 1981, with 30,493 votes to 29,046 for the Ulster Unionist Party candidate Harry West—and also become the youngest MP at the time.[23]. However Sands died in prison less than a month afterwards, without ever having taken his seat in the Commons[24].
Following Sands' success, the British Government introduced the Representation of the People Act 1981 which prevents prisoners serving jail terms of more than one year in either the UK or the Republic of Ireland from being nominated as candidates in British elections.[25][26] This law was introduced in order to prevent the other hunger strikers from being elected to the British parliament.[27]

News of the death of Bobby Sands influenced the way in which political prisoners and the ANC in South Africa responded to their own situation, and inspired a new way of resistance.[38][39] Nelson Mandela was said to have been "directly influenced by Bobby Sands",[38] and instigated a successful Hunger Strike on Robben Island.

RIP Bobby Sands.

Haha, had to copy and paste a bit about Mandela to give a bit of credibility. IRA apologists love South African comparison, when really there is none.

By the way, having just checked my copy of "Long Walk To Freedom", Mandela was so "directly influenced" that Sands doesn't even get a mention.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Even people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause? So they can be tortured into not not sacrificing their lives? More rubbish.

I'll make it simple for you. When you say 'should have' and 'would have' you make an assertion about your beliefs of what might have happened in some alternative universe. Why should anyone give a shit about your beliefs? The fact that you present your beliefs as some sort of rational argument is only evidence of your own poor reasoning.

No one can resist prolonged torture, not even the most strong willed. I was reading about the Hanoi Hilton after I saw the vietnam thread on after hours. There American soldiers were exposed to constant torture to break their will and agree to make propaganda material for the North Vietnamese. Apparently it was a code among the prisoners that you had to resist physical torture until you reach the point of insanity then give them anything you want. They didn't expect you to resist torture indefinitely because having gone through the same thing themselves they knew it was too much to expect.

Your attempts at derailing this are frankly confusing.

Hidalgo

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They were acting on their own when they opened fire. When they did that they were no longer acting on behalf of the British government or the military.

They're still part of the legal arm of the state i.e the British government.

cameramonkey

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well Sands was certainly an active member of the PIRA.

Mind you, his conviction for murder was certainly very shaky; seemingly based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Who was he convicted of murdering?

Seaneh

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Your last line is just unsubstantiated republican propaganda.

It's not actually.
In both the UK and the US there is a massively disproportionate number of ex-servicemen in the prison system. It's actually pretty interesting to study from a sociological and psychological point of view.