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

pablomakaveli

Hidalgo wrote: »

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

Which is irrelevant since they acted on their own.

.jacksparrow.

droidman123 wrote: »

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.

That's because as a nation we are anything but the fighting Irish, just look at the current situation, everyone giving out but no proper marches or refusal to accept the policies

We are a nation that needs to be told how to live.

Seaneh

cameramonkey wrote: »

Who was he convicted of murdering?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he was convicted for possession of a firearm that have been used in a gunfight with the RUC, not murder.

He wasn't even in possession of the gun, it was in a car he happened to be travelling in with 2 other men, it wasn't even his car.

pablomakaveli

Seaneh wrote: »

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.

Try reading this thread where its been pointed out the figures are skewed.

The sheer number of ex-servicemen in both countries would completely dwarf other professions meaning the results will be skewed.

For example if you had 200,000 ex military and 30,000 ex-teachers with about 1% of each group winding up in prison then the ex military numbers would be larger simply due to the greater numbers of ex servicemen as a whole.

carab

“Ní bhrisfidh siad mé mar tá an fonn saoirse agus saoirse mhuintir na hEireann i mo chroí. Tiocfaidh lá éigin nuair a bheidh an fonn saoirse seo le taispeáint ag daoine go léir na hEireann ansin tchífidh muid eirí na gealaí.”

RIP Bobby Sands, Go dtuga Dia suaimhneas síoraí dó.

Seaneh

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Which is irrelevant since they acted on their own.

What is relevant is that the military lied about it for 40 years following it and the british government helped them with the cover up. That's pretty disgusting.

And then you have the fact that the british government, through MI5, supplied arms and monies to loyalist paramilitary groups in the last 60's and 70's, which were then used to murder nationalist civilians.

That IS directing a campaign on a civilian population, and it was done, thryough a proxy, by the British government.

Banjo String

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.

Nice to see you acknowledge there was a war.

Bobby Sands would most likely never have seen the inside of a prison cell, had there not been a war going on in the north.

Sunnyisland

The Irish did not invent the hunger strike; history may even record Mahatma Gandhi as its chief exponent, with his seventeen strikes against British colonial rule. In the 1990's, the hunger strike is more commonly found as a means of protest in the republics of the former Soviet Union than it is in Ireland. No one can deny, however, that dramatic hunger strikes in Ireland since the 1916 Easter Rising have made the world aware of the continuing tension between Ireland and England.

The use of the hunger strike as a political weapon in Ireland exploded after the 1916 Easter Rising. In 1917, Thomas Ashe struck for political prisoner status while in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin. Force fed, Ashe died in prison and 40,000 mourners marched in his funeral procession, 9,000 wearing the uniform of the Irish Volunteers. Then in 1920, the Lord Mayor of Cork, Terence MacSwiney staged a hunger strike that was followed around the world. MacSwiney, an IRA commander in the Cork area, was arrested at an IRA meeting and sentenced to two years for sedition. Poet, playwright, philosopher, Mayor MacSwiney insisted Britain had no jurisdiction in Ireland. He died after seventy-three days of fasting, believing that "It is not those who inflict the most but those who suffer the most who will conquer."

The strike generated a spate of commentary on its efficacy and morality. Those who supported MacSwiney called his act noble, a response to tyranny, and his refusal to eat morally justifiable. Opponents judged the fast to death as suicide and, therefore, morally wrong. The Westminster Gazette's editorial at the time called MacSwiney a martyr and stated, "He has won his battle."

Bobby Sands, along with nine other inmates of the Maze/Long Kesh Prison in Northern Ireland, fasted unto death in 1981. They too sought political prisoner status. When Sands died after sixty-six days of fasting, many governments and publications from such diverse countries as Spain, France, Russia, Mexico, Mozambique and Poland expressed sympathy for Sands, an elected member of Parliament. The New York Times said he had "bested an implacable British Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher]."

(Written by John Walsh and originally printed in September 1993)

In bold as it continues today & some opinions will never change.

wolfpawnat

KyussBishop wrote: »

Starvation is a pretty horrible way to go, and it takes enormous effort to force yourself through it; so, whatever personal/political criticisms people may have of Bobby Sands, it has to be admired, the sheer determination, integrity of personal principles, and incredible willpower that it takes, to tortuously starve yourself to death over two months, in protest.

There aren't a whole lot of people who have both 1: the level of self-determination and willpower needed to be capable of that, or 2: the strength of belief in principals, and personal dedication to them, required in order to actually voluntarily choose that fate.

+1 Many do not have the dedication to anything in this life to sacrifice themselves in such a painful way! Your body and mind wasting away slowly, 66 days is a long death!

The other thing that everyone has to given Bobby Sands and the rest of the Hunger Strikers. They sacrificed themselves, meaning they did not physically harm innocent civilians in their protest, making them far more respectful of human life than many of their peers, the RUC, and the British Government! They caused their families suffering, but to this day Sand's sisters seem to stand by his decision!

RIP to an Irish Patriot.

Death and Taxes

will be having a thread for every self serving criminal who commited suicide while in jail, or just a select few?

RandomName2

cameramonkey wrote: »

Who was he convicted of murdering?

Implicated in 1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing. Apparently a sloppy mess of of a conviction - but as I already said, the conviction was separate from his hunger strike which basically went along the lines of 'Sure, okay, you convicted me, but both I and my companions demand to be treated as a prisoners of war'.

wolfpawnat

RandomName2 wrote: »

Implicated in 1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing. Apparently a sloppy mess of of a conviction - but as I already said, the conviction was separate from his hunger strike.

The choice word there. Internment without proof or trial in the late 70's and 80's was more in fashion than an iphone these days!!

Seaneh

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Try reading this thread where its been pointed out the figures are skewed.

The sheer number of ex-servicemen in both countries would completely dwarf other professions meaning the results will be skewed.

For example if you had 200,000 ex military and 30,000 ex-teachers with about 1% of each group winding up in prison then the ex military numbers would be larger simply due to the greater numbers of ex servicemen as a whole.

See, this is why I used the word disproportionate.

The percentage of former military service personal who end up in the criminal system post military career is extremely disproportionate. Massively so. Especially the percentage who commit violent crimes.

Rascasse

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The choice word there. Internment without proof or trial in the late 70's and 80's was more in fashion than an iphone these days!!

Early 70's, not 80's.

wolfpawnat

Rascasse wrote: »

Early 70's, not 80's.

My apologies, you are correct, early 70's are the dates for Operation Demetrius, and '77 when it went to the European Court of Human Rights.

But still, Sands was merely implicated, not convicted, innocent until proven guilty meant toss all in the six counties (apparently still does) in that time.

RandomName2

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The choice word there. Internment without proof or trial in the late 70's and 80's was more in fashion than an iphone these days!!

Well, yes. He may well have carried out the bombing. He may have been part of a group that carried out the bombing. Companions of his may have carried out the bombing, and he may have had no direct act or part. There's even a slight possibility that the evidence was in some way falsified.

However, he did stand trial and was actually convicted.

But it was the fact that the bombing was treated as a criminal act, and not an act of war, that was the sticking point!

Gosub

There are people on here saying that this or that wasn't British government policy. How could you possibly know what was policy at that time. A lot of policy was shrouded in secrecy. The SAS worked under the government. Are you privy to their orders at the time?

It would take a lot to convince me that there wasn't a shoot-to-kill policy and that the British government didn't have a hand in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. But that's just my belief. If the whole truth ever came out - which it won't - I think the British would have a lot of hard questions to answer. At least the policy of the IRA was well known and there was little or no hiding behind a veil of innocent governance.

All parties have blood on their hands, that's what happens in a conflict. The IRA's bloody hands are paraded by the current Irish government for all to see. How about the blood on British hands? It only becomes visible after many, many years and much pressure. Even then, it's only a small percentage of what they really did. And as for torture? It was common knowledge in Belfast at the time that Maghaberry prison was torture central.

I would be in favour of putting it all behind us, but will that ever happen? Will the current Irish government ever stop bringing up the history of SF every time they can't answer a question?

wolfpawnat

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, yes. He may well have carried out the bombing. He may have been part of a group that carried out the bombing. Companions of his may have carried out the bombing, and he may have had no direct act or part. There's even a slight possibility that the evidence was in some way falsified.

But it was the fact that the bombing was treated as a criminal act, and not an act of war, that was the sticking point!

What I find interesting about the Troubles as a whole, when it suited people, acts were seem as "Acts of War" but then when things went against them, the perpetrators and the acts were seen as "Criminal Acts". Now I say that about both sides. And as I have said many a time before, I do not condone the deaths of civilians by anyone!

Rascasse

wolfpawnat wrote: »

My apologies, you are correct, early 70's are the dates for Operation Demetrius, and '77 when it went to the European Court of Human Rights.

But still, Sands was merely implicated, not convicted, innocent until proven guilty meant toss all in the six counties (apparently still does) in that time.

Sands was never, to my knowledge at least, interred. He was held on remand and jailed on conviction, but not interred. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean you get bail if charged with a serious crime.

wolfpawnat

Rascasse wrote: »

Sands was never, to my knowledge at least, interred. He was held on remand and jailed on conviction, but not interred. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean you get bail if charged with a serious crime.

Of course not I would not like to think of a suspected bomber being allowed wander the streets today, but to accuse him of being X, Y and Z when many times evidence was falsified or overlooked (Guilford Four being an example) and not acknowledging his protest was one that harmed no one but himself irks me.

Dr. Nooooo!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

He was a Provo, a member of a terrorist organization. In my eyes he's a terrorist and nothing more.

Thats Bobby Sands, MP, to you.

RandomName2

Dr. Nooooo! wrote: »

Thats Bobby Sands, MP, to you.

As I already said, it seems odd for someone to call themselves a soldier and then run for election to that same government which they are fighting, that they have declared they were no citizen of. Or wait, was he actually considering no longer engaging in PIRA activities, but instead conducting a purely political opposition.... from prison... whilst dying from being on hunger strike... for not being considered a soldier?

mike65

Is this the "get to know your Boards.ie Provos" thread?

wolfpawnat

mike65 wrote: »

Is this the "get to know your Boards.ie Provos" thread?

No, that was about 4 years ago.

mike65

It does have the whiff of historical irrelevance about it.

wolfpawnat

mike65 wrote: »

It does have the whiff of historical irrelevance about it.

Well since the Provo's are gone with well over a decade.

Sure there was a thread dedicated to the death of Thatcher, why not one to someone of the opposing side?

Sunnyisland

mike65 wrote: »

It does have the whiff of historical irrelevance about it.

Bobby Sands and the other nine who died on hunger strike over 30 years ago continue to provide inspiration to political prisoners everywhere.

Iwasfrozen

realies wrote: »

Bobby Sands and the other nine who died on hunger strike over 30 years ago continue to provide inspiration to political prisoners everywhere.

You mean terrorists.

Sunnyisland

I Was Frozen wrote: »

You mean terrorists.

Well they might inspire inspiration to them to :P:)

Iwasfrozen

realies wrote: »

Well they might inspire inspiration to them to :P:)

lol no doubt they already do, the Brits should never have let him die a martyr.