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

InFront · 17-01-2007 3:34am

guinnessdrinker wrote:

Hey guys,

Here's some interesting pictures from 1981.

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Portugal.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Oslo.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Paris.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Australia.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/New-Zealand.jpg

And also the street in Iran...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/aa/Bobby_sands_street.jpg

Those pictures mean nothing. By no means do they seem to suggest substantial support, going by numbers. If you want to show the real injustice in the north, you could begin by photgraphing coffins of those killed by Bobby Sands fellow terrorists in the pIRA.

Btw, couldn't help but notice this on the pro-IRA website you linked to

There are also seven prisoners in Portlaoise, who were sentenced in 2004 under a non jury court for membership of the IRA... Instead of this, eight years after the Good Friday Agreement and over a year after the IRA formally ended its campaign, IRA prisoners remain in prison.

They failed to realize these men were guilty of IRA activity long AFTER the Good friday agreement!! That's not really relevant, just a bit funny.

Fratton Fred · 17-01-2007 9:58am

There are also seven prisoners in Portlaoise, who were sentenced in 2004 under a non jury court for membership of the IRA... Instead of this, eight years after the Good Friday Agreement and over a year after the IRA formally ended its campaign, IRA prisoners remain in prison.

Another example of the British justice system :rolleyes:

guinnessdrinker · 17-01-2007 2:47pm

Hey InFront,

Those pictures mean nothing. By no means do they seem to suggest substantial support, going by numbers.

I didnt mean to annoy you or anyone by linking to those pictures. I just said they were interesting pictures, which in my opinion they are. I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything.

I did find it very interesting though that people in other European cities especially, will take to the streets to protest about something happening in Ireland.

17-01-2007 6:18pm

guinnessdrinker wrote:

I did find it very interesting though that people in other European cities especially, will take to the streets to protest about something happening in Ireland.

It would be interesting to know how many of those protesters were Irish republicans living abroad!

Erin Go Brath · 17-01-2007 8:20pm

InFront wrote:

Those pictures mean nothing.

They prove that there was huge support for the hunger strikers throughout the world.

InFront · 17-01-2007 8:43pm

Huge? Well, I didn't count exact figures but the crowds do not look "huge".

Sometimes it's human nature to cheer for the underdog. The pIRA conducted their propaganda efficiently at that time. But with quite wavering results, going by what are far from "huge" crowds in those photos. Any official figures? As in official, legitimate.

csk · 17-01-2007 8:58pm

InFront wrote:

Btw, couldn't help but notice this on the pro-IRA website you linked to

There are also seven prisoners in Portlaoise, who were sentenced in 2004 under a non jury court for membership of the IRA... Instead of this, eight years after the Good Friday Agreement and over a year after the IRA formally ended its campaign, IRA prisoners remain in prison.

They failed to realize these men were guilty of IRA activity long AFTER the Good friday agreement!! That's not really relevant, just a bit funny.

I know because it's me you wont be reading this, but maybe that will save you the embarrssment.

I had a read of that website and I was very interested to notice that what it acutally states is very differnent to what InFront thinks it states.

There are also seven prisoners in Portlaoise, who were sentenced in 2004 under a non jury court for membership of the IRA. These people should also be released firstly because of the means in which they were charged and secondly considering the IRA's declaration of an end to its armed campaign, all IRA prisoners should have been released. Instead of this, eight years after the Good Friday Agreement and over a year after the IRA formally ended its campaign, IRA prisoners remain in prison. This is due to a lack of political will, especially by the Dublin government, and must be challenged by every republican.[/B]

The use of that ellipis proves very telling don't you think, leaves out all the context(something InFront seems good at might I add).

They failed to realize these men were guilty of IRA activity long AFTER the Good friday agreement!! That's not really relevant, just a bit funny

Now if we take the piece InFront left out then we will see that Infront failed to realise that they are not campaigning for release under the GFA but (and I quote) "because of the means in which they were charged and secondly considering the IRA's declaration of an end to its armed campaign".

The refernece to the GFA is only because under the GFA the precedent for releasing prisoners has already been set.

However if we were to get pedantic as regards the GFA, a quick perusal of the agreement will show that the only condition for consideration is that your organistion is on ceasefire. Also all the elements are eligble for review anyway.

Now if we take what else InFront failed to realize, that the men whoever they are (and I really couldn't care who they are or what they did or whether they should be realeased) were, according to the passage, convicted of MEMBERSHIP of the IRA.

Now AFAIK you don't actually have to be involved in any "activity" to get convicted as such, all is needed is for a Garda to prove that you are a member of the illegal organisation self styled as the IRA, otherwise the Irish Republican Army, otherwise Óglaigh na hÉireann.

Now since these men were only convicted for "membership" and the IRA did not break it's ceasefire, in fact it has formally ended altogether it's campiagn, then technically these prisoners could qualify under the GFA, if it wasn't for (and InFront left this out too) " a lack of political will, especially by the Dublin government".

Of course none of this is really relevant, just a bit funny.;)

csk · 17-01-2007 9:37pm

guinnessdrinker wrote:

Hey guys,

Here's some interesting pictures from 1981.

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Portugal.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Oslo.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Paris.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/Australia.jpg

http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/images/hungerstrikeperiod/New-Zealand.jpg

And also the street in Iran...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/a/aa/Bobby_sands_street.jpg

Thanks for the pictures very interesting, especially the first one, that's a massive crowd and in Portugal as well. Of course Portugal are traditional ally's of Britain going bcak as far as the Napoleanic Wars so it's all the more strange to see such support. I think the Portugese Parlaiment also condemned Thatcher. Strange.

Anyway there is no need to apologise to anyone the pictures were interesting.

walrusgumble · 17-01-2007 10:05pm

it might be worth note, that sand's funeral was covered by news broadcasters from all over europe,us, japan and even thailand. (ok this maybe out of curiosity, but why would they want to give coverage to the death of a "terrorist" certain heads of our very own rte were not keen on providing coverage.

the us government issued a statement of "deep regret"
some worker's union in the us, longshoremen's union had a 24 hour boycott of british ships

the new jersey state legislature passed a motion honouring the dead hunger strikers

member's of india's upper house stood in a minutes silence

the president of the italian senate, amintore fanfan, sent condolence to the sands family

street protests in paris and milan, even oslo

hong kong (then still part of british empire/commonwealth) the hong kong standard (newspaper)denounced the failure of succesive british governments "to end the last of europe's relion wars"

never before did a prime minister of a civilised society allow one of his/her fellow members of parliament to starve themselves to death. at least the dail had the flag at half mast for their dead td

looks like quiete a few places had some regard for what happened in 1981. surely (with prob exception of u.s., you could not suggest that its was mostly irish people in those areas that were behind some of these gestures?

Erin Go Brath · 17-01-2007 10:21pm

More examples of support for Bobby Sands:

http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/research/aia/exhibits/0501_hunger/support/prosands.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0HemnEIkBo&mode=related&search=

http://katemc.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/30000-people-know-who-the-victors-were-25-years-ago/

Fratton Fred · 17-01-2007 10:37pm

People in Gaza celebrated and honoured the 9/11 bombers. Should we name streets after them?

I would suggest that the majority of these people were demonstrating for political reasons more than their support for Bobby Sands.

Add the fact that Margaret was about as popular as her footballing namesake Ben and that may well account for 70% of the protests.

Erin Go Brath · 17-01-2007 11:20pm

Fratton Fred wrote:

People in Gaza celebrated and honoured the 9/11 bombers. Should we name streets after them?

The difference is people all over the world, east and west supported Bobbys cause.

csk · 17-01-2007 11:36pm

Erin Go Brath wrote:

More examples of support for Bobby Sands:

http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/research/aia/exhibits/0501_hunger/support/prosands.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0HemnEIkBo&mode=related&search=

http://katemc.wordpress.com/2006/08/22/30000-people-know-who-the-victors-were-25-years-ago/

There's a good article in that third link which sums up the hungerstrikes very well as, a clash of beliefs as well as of politics.

That sums up for me what happened.The idea that your opponent could give in without losing face by claiming they were only doing so to stop another human being die a horrible agonising death, seems to have been lost on the British Government.

Of course the whole idea of Toscad was that "giving in" would be honourable. Then again if the British Government didn't learn lessons with Terence Mac Swiney or Thomas Ashe, we shouldn't have really been surprised.

Now I know full well the British Government's perspective and why they thought they had to do what they did but I still don't "get" it, maybe that's because I'm Irish and I somehow "get" Toscad.

As walrusgumble pointed out, never before in the history of the world has a so-called civilised country let one of their own parlaimentarians die, not just Bobby Sands but also do not forget Ciarán Doherty T.D. was allowed to die as well, as well as eight other men.

walrusgumble · 18-01-2007 12:09am

we are all aware of the tradition of hunger strikes in our history.

remember many loyalist prisoners also were on protest for similar reasons as the republican protesters, bare going the whole way. to be far to the loyalist they had a reasonable belief that hungerstrike would not be worth it and my not amount to anything.

and yes, the loyalist had their protests and did get 7 shades of sh*te beaten out of them by the wardens. they had their protests. but they had the difficulties, in that their supporters outside feared that they would be seen as joining forces with republicans for a similar cause and that would not be good. if they had gone on hunger strike they, unlike the republican movement, would not have the same support from their people on the outside.

what would thatcher have done had a loyalist group similar to sands done the same? (were their actions an act of subversion to the crown, suppose so as they were sent to prison?) would the people of britain, the people who kept maggie in the house of commons for over 21 years, tolerated their fellow british citizen being allowed to die? (to be far the working class in the north of england had their own problems with her at this time)

incidently (was reegan prez in the u..s then, top of my head not sure, but do remember he was pally with maggie) it is some sign of support and understaning for ireland's problems when members of the u.s seanad held a minutes silence and denounced britain's actions. and as erin go brath says, support for sand's stance and political belief was found worldwide. lets remember who sands was associated with and the horribles deeds that group did in the british mainland in the 1970's.would any of these countries want to be seen as given condolence or support for their actions regardless of sand's stance. what was stopping the so caleed western world to say, feck them they are terrorist let them die? the rest of the world seemed to notice that there was something wrong akin to something like a civil war in northern ireland, why couldn't britain?.hong kong, who was part of the british establishment seemed to notice it, and they being 1000 miles away.

jesus, even in that time certain celebs had a bit of a say in their society. two well respected musicians, sir paul mccarthy and john lennon wrote (naff) songs about the situation during the troubles in the 1970's. give ireland back to the irish and the luck of the irish, respectively

malcom x, unlike martin luther king, believed sometimes a more militant/physical force stance was needed to get this communty the same rights and respect as their white counterpart. could he be seen as a terrorist or ancharist by the rest of us?

were all the people who attended the funerals of the hunger strikers all terrorists?how do we not know is some where constitutionalist people?

joebhoy1916 · 18-01-2007 12:28am

Francis Hughes funeral keep watching thyen you see how many is there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTE0TXDMJ6U

vesp · 18-01-2007 12:42am

csk wrote:

The idea that your opponent could give in without losing face by claiming they were only doing so to stop another human being die a horrible agonising death, seems to have been lost on the British Government.

a horrible agonising death ? While Sands was no doubt encouraged and indoctrinated by the Republican movement to starve to death, let us not forget it was Sands decision to die. He had that choice. The organisation of which he was a member, the PIRA, did not give its victims that choice. Many a man , woman and child was killed, often in front of their families, and there are thousands who were injured. The majority of people in N. Ireland had and have no sympathy whatsoever for Sands, just as they had and have no sympathy for those terrorists who killed themselves on 9 / 11. Do not forget in that era, the eighties, the IRA was condemned throughout the world, from the White house in Washington to the Kremlem, then at opposite extremes of the political spectrum.

The fact that a poster here thinks that something supporting Sands was written in The Hindustan times and the Hong Kong Standard, and that this proves worldwide support for " the cause", is pathetic.

walrusgumble · 18-01-2007 1:02am

jesus you make it out that the uda and uvf did not kill innocent people either, please try and think the next time you and your fellow posters who side on the "no to a sands street" call people biggoted.

i am certainly not condoning their actions and i am certainly not saying ah it was a war and these things happen, but, what do you do when your community gets attacked and your treated like the sh*t on another's shoe,? many people had similar reasons to join the ira or uda/uvf: to protect their communities, david ervine, rip, has often confessed to this. as for th majority of people in n.i. its population was halved with people of nationalist tendacies ( i am sure many till had damn all respected for the man)

incidently what is your view on malcolm x and his opinions? how come he can (rightly) be celebrated by the rest of the world for his idea of getting what he wanted.

and what about other country's government's actions after their deaths.

Erin Go Brath · 18-01-2007 1:21am

vesp wrote:

The fact that a poster here thinks that something supporting Sands was written in The Hindustan times and the Hong Kong Standard, and that this proves worldwide support for " the cause", is pathetic.

I believe its one of my posts youre referring to.

Vesp, you really have to pay attention.
I was using these newspapers as part of an example of the global outrage at the deaths of the hunger strikers, which you were denying when you tried savaging one of csk's intelligently made points.

Now I think myself and a number of posters here have shown evidence that theres huge support for Bobby Sands and the other 9 hunger strikers, not just in Ireland but around the world.

vesp · 18-01-2007 1:23am

walrusgumble wrote:

jesus you make it out that the uda and uvf did not kill innocent people either,

I never said that ; in fact I condemned the UDA and UVF. They may not have killed as many as the Republicans did, but I condemn them just as much.

walrusgumble wrote:

as for th majority of people in n.i. its population was halved with people of nationalist tendacies

Wrong. Totally wrong. When Sands was alive nearly all of the MP's in N.Ireland were not nationalists. The nationalist share of the electorate is still a long way short of half. In all opinion polls 25% of Roman Catholics in N. Ireland wish to stay part of the UK, and 99% of Protestants do. The IRA shooting and bombing campaign was counter-productive in bringing people together.

vesp · 18-01-2007 1:29am

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Vesp, you really have to pay attention.
I was using these newspapers as part of an example of the global outrage at the deaths of the hunger strikers, which you were denying when you tried savaging one of csk's intelligently made points.

Now I think myself and a number of posters here have shown evidence that theres huge support for Bobby Sands and the other 9 hunger strikers, not just in Ireland but around the world.

Erin Go Brath, you really have to pay attention. You have not shown any evidence that Sands self-inflicted death was even mentioned, let alone condoned in " The Hindustan times and the Hong Kong Standard" !
You think by mentioning these two newspaper using these newspapers that they are " part of an example of the global outrage at the deaths of the hunger strikers" :rolleyes: If I mentioned that the Ballymanor times had an article on aliens landing from Mars does that prove there is live on every planet in the galaxy ?

Erin Go Brath · 18-01-2007 1:47am

vesp wrote:

Erin Go Brath, you really have to pay attention. You have not shown any evidence that Sands self-inflicted death was even mentioned, let alone condoned in " The Hindustan times and the Hong Kong Standard" !

The Hong Kong Standard said it was 'sad that successive British
governments have failed to end the last of Europe's religious wars'. The
Hindustan Times said Mrs Thatcher had allowed a fellow Member of
Parliament to die of starvation, an incident which had never before
occurred 'in a civilized country'.

http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20051024/025597.html

vesp · 18-01-2007 2:10am

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The Hong Kong Standard said it was 'sad that successive British governments have failed to end the last of Europe's religious wars'.

So the best you can do, out of tens of thousands of newspaper around the world, is alledegdly find a quote where it says 'sad that successive British governments have failed to end the last of Europe's religious wars'. It was indeed sad at the time that successive British governments have failed to end the last of Europe's religious wars.....but giving in to the terrorists on one side of that war was not in the general publics interests. The statement does not convey widespread public sympathy for the PIRA to me. Having travelled the world in the eighties I can assure you there was no great public sympathy for the men of violence, the people who bombed and maimed. It would amaze you how little some people in America and Australia would know about Ireland anyway. I met one person there for example who did not know where in the world Ireland was.
However, just as the terrorists of 9 / 11 are condemned by governments and media, so were the PIRA around the world, especially after outrages like Enniskillen.

Erin Go Brath · 18-01-2007 2:58am

The
Hindustan Times said Mrs Thatcher had allowed a fellow Member of
Parliament to die of starvation, an incident which had never before
occurred 'in a civilized country'. Tehran announced Iran would be
sending its ambassador in Sweden to represent the Government at the
funeral. In Oslo demonstrators threw a balloon filled with tomato sauce
at the Queen, who was on a visit to Norway. In India Opposition members
of the Upper House stood for a minute's silence in tribute. Members of
Indira Gandhi's ruling Congress Party refused to join in. In Portugal
members of the Opposition stood for him. In Spain the Catholic Ya
newspaper described Sands's hunger strike as 'subjectively an act of
heroism' while the conservative ABC said he was a political kamikaze who
had got his strategy wrong. In Russia Pravda described it as 'another tragic
page in the grim chronicle of oppression, discrimination, terror and in
violence' Ireland.

That better for ya?

Fratton Fred · 18-01-2007 10:41am

walrusgumble wrote:

we are all aware of the tradition of hunger strikes in our history.

remember many loyalist prisoners also were on protest for similar reasons as the republican protesters, bare going the whole way. to be far to the loyalist they had a reasonable belief that hungerstrike would not be worth it and my not amount to anything.

and yes, the loyalist had their protests and did get 7 shades of sh*te beaten out of them by the wardens. they had their protests. but they had the difficulties, in that their supporters outside feared that they would be seen as joining forces with republicans for a similar cause and that would not be good. if they had gone on hunger strike they, unlike the republican movement, would not have the same support from their people on the outside.

what would thatcher have done had a loyalist group similar to sands done the same? (were their actions an act of subversion to the crown, suppose so as they were sent to prison?) would the people of britain, the people who kept maggie in the house of commons for over 21 years, tolerated their fellow british citizen being allowed to die? (to be far the working class in the north of england had their own problems with her at this time)

incidently (was reegan prez in the u..s then, top of my head not sure, but do remember he was pally with maggie) it is some sign of support and understaning for ireland's problems when members of the u.s seanad held a minutes silence and denounced britain's actions. and as erin go brath says, support for sand's stance and political belief was found worldwide. lets remember who sands was associated with and the horribles deeds that group did in the british mainland in the 1970's.would any of these countries want to be seen as given condolence or support for their actions regardless of sand's stance. what was stopping the so caleed western world to say, feck them they are terrorist let them die? the rest of the world seemed to notice that there was something wrong akin to something like a civil war in northern ireland, why couldn't britain?.hong kong, who was part of the british establishment seemed to notice it, and they being 1000 miles away.

jesus, even in that time certain celebs had a bit of a say in their society. two well respected musicians, sir paul mccarthy and john lennon wrote (naff) songs about the situation during the troubles in the 1970's. give ireland back to the irish and the luck of the irish, respectively

malcom x, unlike martin luther king, believed sometimes a more militant/physical force stance was needed to get this communty the same rights and respect as their white counterpart. could he be seen as a terrorist or ancharist by the rest of us?

were all the people who attended the funerals of the hunger strikers all terrorists?how do we not know is some where constitutionalist people?

you make some interesting points. Would loyalist hunger strikers have been allowed to die? yes I think they would. Would their death have been as widely publicised as Bobby Sands? no I don't think they would have.

Erin Go Barth's comments regarding the Hindustan times etc that it is a shame that the British Government has not been able to sort out the worlds longest running religious war, isn't that kind of stating the bleeding obvious?

But, I would argue, it is not a government who can stop the troubles, it is the people of Northern Ireland. Surely the comment should be that it is pathetic that two communites who share a small piece of land can not live together and have let thei lives be consumed with religious bigotry.

Celebrities are in the same position as the rest of us outside the north, we can all make comments and basically it means feck all because we are detached from it. The yanks love it because they see it as some sort of David v Goliath struggle. The mighty British Empire versus some cheeky Irish folks. It's also a good way of securng votes from the massive Irish community. Don't forget, they also support Israel for pretty much the same reason.

I remember one of the Kennedys coming to NI (against the wioshes of pretty much everyone) and holding a rally, to which about 200 people (mostly journalists) turned up. Obviously the army were there in case of trouble and for some reason Kennedy turned on a Britsh Sargeant and started telling him the British should leave Ireland etc. The Sargeant just turned to him and said "Look mate, no one wants you here, you are just stirring things up. why don't you just feck off back to the states." this seemed to be the best thing anyne had said all day and received a round of applause from pretty much everyone other then Kennedy and his entourage. Made me smile anyway.

csk · 18-01-2007 3:47pm

vesp wrote:

a horrible agonising death ? let us not forget it was Sands decision to die.

A little anecdote for you vesp.

When Bobby Sands started his hungerstrike, the late Fr. Faul asked him, "Bobby why do you continue to take Salt and water, why not go all the way? To which Bobby answered, "it's because I don't want to die, Father".

Now Erin Go Brath among others has amply proven that there was support for the Hungerstrikers around the world and that the British Government was condemned.

You seem unable to grasp the fact that support for the hungerstrikers is not the same as support for the Provisional IRA, no one has attempted to make such a claim except you.

Furthermore you seem unable to see that the British Government were not angels throughout the troubles and that they did very bad things too. To me this is very strange and really makes your judgement suspect.

In light of this and your continual bleating about there being no support, despite evidence to the contrary, I would have to say everything you say is by extension suspect.

vesp · 19-01-2007 12:23am

Erin Go Brath wrote:

The
Hindustan Times said Mrs Thatcher had allowed a fellow Member of
Parliament to die of starvation, an incident which had never before
occurred 'in a civilized country'. Tehran announced Iran would be
sending its ambassador in Sweden to represent the Government at the
funeral. blah blah blah

That better for ya?

What you say some geezer in the Hindustan Times said is of no real relevance.
As regards Tehran announcing such and such about sending someone to the funeral, even if that is true it would be expected from the Tehran of the eighties.
I ask you again : If I mentioned that the Ballymanor times had an article on aliens landing from Mars does that prove there is live on every planet in the galaxy ?

vesp · 19-01-2007 12:40am

csk wrote:

A little anecdote for you vesp.

When Bobby Sands started his hungerstrike, the late Fr. Faul asked him, "Bobby why do you continue to take Salt and water, why not go all the way? To which Bobby answered, "it's because I don't want to die, Father".

And how did Fr. Faul reply to that " Go on, go on, go on " ?
Y'will, y'will, y'will. If he did not want to die why did he not eat the tasty and free food provided to him by the taxpayer ? Did he really want to see tensions raised so much in N. Ireland and many other people killed as a result ? And all for what ? Nothing.

csk wrote:

Now Erin Go Brath among others has amply proven that there was support for the Hungerstrikers around the world and that the British Government was condemned.

amply proven:D lol lol

csk wrote:

You seem unable to grasp the fact that support for the hungerstrikers is not the same as support for the Provisional IRA, no one has attempted to make such a claim except you.

Wrong again csk. The men who chose to starve to death were all republican terrorists - men from the PIRA and INLA. I never claimed that support for the hungerstrikers was the same as support for the Provisional IRA. What I wrote was " Having travelled the world in the eighties I can assure you there was no great public sympathy for the men of violence, the people who bombed and maimed." I met people from many different places while the h-block strikes were on, and I can assure you there was no great support for them. Of course in certain sections of Irish communities abroad some people would have had sympathy for them.

csk wrote:

Furthermore you seem unable to see that the British Government were not angels throughout the troubles and that they did very bad things too.

I never said anyone was angles throughout the trouble and I never claimed anyone or any organisation was infallible. Would you seriously expect mistakes not to have been made, or everyone to have acted 100% properly all of the time, out of hundreds of thousands of security force people who served there over the years ?

InFront · 19-01-2007 2:48pm

The attempts to follow up requests for proof of "huge international support" for Sands are laughable. Huge international support means worldwide rallies, thousands of people out protesting, responses from the British government: not some guy writing in an opinion column in the Hindustani Times and a minor protests in Denmark etc.
Bobby Sands is not a worldly figure, he gave his life for a small province in North Western Europe, and it achieved nothing. What a waste. But at least it was his choice.

csk · 19-01-2007 3:16pm

vesp wrote:

And how did Fr. Faul reply to that " Go on, go on, go on " ?
Y'will, y'will, y'will.

:rolleyes: You know, all that really serves to do, is to highlight the defiency in your intellect.

vesp wrote:

amply proven:D lol lol

Ah yes the dreaded smilies, how can I ever come back. My argument is completely demolished.:rolleyes:

Wrong again csk. What I wrote was " Having travelled the world in the eighties I can assure you there was no great public sympathy for the men of violence, the people who bombed and maimed."

That's not what I was refering to. Really you on your holidays in the Benidorm or somewhere has no relevance.

Okay, what I was refering to was where I wrote:

csk wrote:

It ws not only those two countries, many many other bodies supported the Hungerstrikers, what is that indicative of ?

Istead of saying yes it was indicative of support for the Hungerstrikers,
You wrote:

vesp wrote:

Do not kid yourself there was widespread support around the world for the killers of Jean McColville, the bombers of Bloody Friday, Le Mons etc etc or the snipers / car bombers who carried out their mini ethnic cleansing campaign in border areas.

There you are equating support for the Hungerstrikers with support for the killers of Jean Mc Conville, the bombers of bloody friday, Le Mons, etc etc, otherwise the Provisional IRA.

Once again when I wrote it was indicative of support for the Hungerstrikers, you wrote:

vesp wrote:

As I said, do not kid yourself there was widespread support around the world for the killers of Jean McColville, the bombers of Bloody Friday, Le Mons etc etc or the snipers / car bombers who carried out their mini ethnic cleansing campaign in border areas.

Is that not you equating support for the hungerstrikers with support for the Provisional IRA ?

vesp wrote:

I never said anyone was angles throughout the trouble and I never claimed anyone or any organisation was infallible.

So you are admitting that the British Government did bad things in the North east of Ireland ?

csk · 19-01-2007 3:33pm

Infront wrote:

The attempts to follow up requests for proof of "huge international support" for Sands are laughable

Please point out where I have said that there was "huge international support".

Are you claiming that there was no support what so ever ?

Really, are you in any position to use the word laughable, considering your post no. 124

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

Comments