The story of what led bobby sands to join the IRA

17-07-2016 1:46pm

maryishere wrote: »

no but your author from Kenya was!

The British had the slogan "Labour & Freedom" over the front gate of Ngenya detention camp in 1950s Kenya. Sounds disturbingly familiar doesn't it Mary?

jack923 · 17-07-2016 1:48pm

bubblypop wrote: »

But it was done by people that were members of the PIRA before the gfa.
So same people, same organisation, different name

Done by members of an organisation with about 15 members at the time, it's a different group which doesn't represent the PIRA in any way.

If members of Fine Gael broke off and started a different party they no longer represent the Fine Gael.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 1:50pm

NiallBoo wrote: »

Not a chance.

While many sympathise with the romantic notion if a united ireland, they're very aware that Northern Ireland is an unstable basket-case and wouldn't want to open that can of worms.

People were so unbelievably tired and fed up of constant violence when the good Friday agreement happened.

It would most likely still pass right now and in the 70s it would undoubtedly have passed there's literally no question of it.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 1:51pm

bubblypop wrote: »

But it was done by people that were members of the PIRA before the gfa.
So same people, same organisation, different name

*some of the same people, different organisation, different name.

There I corrected that for you.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 1:52pm

Jesus. wrote: »

Recover? Recover from what? Ireland was poor as sh1t under British rule at the time. The Capital had some of the worst slums in Europe. There wasn't much to recover back to.

Hahaha exactly.

17-07-2016 1:56pm

jack923 wrote: »

Done by members of an organisation with about 15 members at the time, it's a different group which doesn't represent the PIRA in any way.

If members of Fine Gael broke off and started a different party they no longer represent the Fine Gael.

It had a lot more than 15 members, trust me.
Anyway, they were only carrying on the war with the same ideologies they always had.
So why are the PIRA any different to any of the dissident groups out there now?

jack923 · 17-07-2016 2:06pm

bubblypop wrote: »

It had a lot more than 15 members, trust me.
Anyway, they were only carrying on the war with the same ideologies they always had.
So why are the PIRA any different to any of the dissident groups out there now?

Because they initially came about to defend their own who were being shot dead, burned out of their houses for nothing while the police force done nothing, they were then treated just as bad by the British army who initiallying came in to protect them.

They then began their offensive campaign in 1972 when they believed a united Ireland was the only way for a better future for their children as there was no future for the Catholic children already there at the time.

The real IRA wanted/want a United Ireland solely for pride and also they are just common criminals living the life of luxury unlike the members of the PIRA.

pedroeibar1 · 17-07-2016 5:17pm

jack923 wrote: »

The real IRA wanted/want a United Ireland solely for pride and also they are just common criminals living the life of luxury unlike the members of the PIRA.

Jesus. wrote: »

So how much would you be willing to take? If they came in and gang-raped your mother in front of you when you were a kid, would you stand up for yourself?

Those who know anything about civil strife in Ireland during 1916-22 would be aware of the absence of rape as a weapon/means of terror and of the respect all sides had for women. Of the few documented instances of rape in that era, the IRA were the culprits - in the “punishment rape” of a woman in Galway(?) for selling milk to the British soldiers, the other again by the IRA, who at a Big House raid isolated two C of I maids from RC staff and ‘molested’ them. (Everyday Violence in the Irish Civil War. Gemma Clark).

I cannot recall mentions of rapes by RIC/B-Specials /troops in NI, the only incidences of rape there also were by the IRA or its factions, the worst being the gang-rape by 8 (from the IPLO) of a woman in Divis Flats. (Ballymurphy and the Irish War by De Baroid p. 331)

Similarly the IRA (from the top down) has consistently tried to cover up the widespread paedophile antics of many of its members.

There is enough documentation in the public domain to show that the Red Hand, UVF, PIRA, IRA, IPLO, etc, all are scumbags and criminals, and trying to justify their actions is futile in any moral society. Extolling the merits of a criminal organization is equally repugnant.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 5:25pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Those who know anything about civil strife in Ireland during 1916-22 would be aware of the absence of rape as a weapon/means of terror and of the respect all sides had for women. Of the few documented instances of rape in that era, the IRA were the culprits - in the “punishment rape” of a woman in Galway(?) for selling milk to the British soldiers, the other again by the IRA, who at a Big House raid isolated two C of I maids from RC staff and ‘molested’ them. (Everyday Violence in the Irish Civil War. Gemma Clark).

I cannot recall mentions of rapes by RIC/B-Specials /troops in NI, the only incidences of rape there also were by the IRA or its factions, the worst being the gang-rape by 8 (from the IPLO) of a woman in Divis Flats. (Ballymurphy and the Irish War by De Baroid p. 331)

Similarly the IRA (from the top down) has consistently tried to cover up the widespread paedophile antics of many of its members.

There is enough documentation in the public domain to show that the Red Hand, UVF, PIRA, IRA, IPLO, etc, all are scumbags and criminals, and trying to justify their actions is futile in any moral society. Extolling the merits of a criminal organization is equally repugnant.

He wasn't talking about 1916-22 and of course you wouldn't recall rape from 1969 onwards it would have been covered up just like ballymurphy, springhill and bloody sunday.

They are not all scumbags they are heroes, freedom fighters to many including myself. you never included the British State in your list of supposed scumbags and criminals.

corner of hells · 17-07-2016 5:40pm

jack923 wrote: »

He wasn't talking about 1916-22 and of course you wouldn't recall rape from 1969 onwards it would have been covered up just like ballymurphy, springhill and bloody sunday.

They are not all scumbags they are heroes, freedom fighters to many including myself. you never included the British State in your list of supposed scumbags and criminals.

The "kangaroo courts" and "nutting squads" were really heroic .

jack923 · 17-07-2016 6:02pm

corner of hells wrote: »

The "kangaroo courts" and "nutting squads" were really heroic .

Really? I wouldn't call it heroic

corner of hells · 17-07-2016 6:07pm

jack923 wrote: »

Really? I wouldn't call it heroic

These are your heroes , you just said it.

maryishere · 17-07-2016 6:10pm

jack923 wrote: »

It would most likely still pass right now and in the 70s it would undoubtedly have passed there's literally no question of it.

lol. I bet you did not know that the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum of 1973 (also known as the Border Poll) was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland.
The turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums. Valid votes: 598,283 (99.01% of Total votes)
Spoiled votes: 5,973 (0.99% of Total votes). And guess what - the vote resulted in an overwhelming majority of those who voted stating they wished to remain in the UK.

The electorate were asked to indicate:

"Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"
or

"Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?"

98.9% went for the first option.
Of course your excuse will be that those who do not believe in the democratic process did not vote etc.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 6:21pm

maryishere wrote: »

lol. I bet you did not know that the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum of 1973 (also known as the Border Poll) was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland.
The turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums. Valid votes: 598,283 (99.01% of Total votes)
Spoiled votes: 5,973 (0.99% of Total votes). And guess what - the vote resulted in an overwhelming majority of those who voted stating they wished to remain in the UK.

The electorate were asked to indicate:

"Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"
or

"Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?"

98.9% went for the first option.
Of course your excuse will be that those who do not believe in the democratic process did not vote etc.

No one is denying that most of northern Ireland was protestant/British/Scottish I was talking about the whole island of Ireland not just 6 counties.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 6:23pm

corner of hells wrote: »

These are your heroes , you just said it.

Yes but I wouldn't call those acts "heroic" why would they be heroic? Nutting was necessary yes but not heroic.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 6:37pm

maryishere wrote: »

lol. I bet you did not know that the Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum of 1973 (also known as the Border Poll) was a referendum held in Northern Ireland on 8 March 1973 on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join with the Republic of Ireland to form a united Ireland.
The turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums. Valid votes: 598,283 (99.01% of Total votes)
Spoiled votes: 5,973 (0.99% of Total votes). And guess what - the vote resulted in an overwhelming majority of those who voted stating they wished to remain in the UK.

The electorate were asked to indicate:

"Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"
or

"Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?"

98.9% went for the first option.
Of course your excuse will be that those who do not believe in the democratic process did not vote etc.

You know there was a boycott from catholics on that poll and that less than 1% of the Catholic population turned out to vote.

Del.Monte · 17-07-2016 6:42pm

jack923 wrote: »

You know there was a boycott from catholics on that poll and that less than 1% of the Catholic population turned out to vote.

You been to Wiki again?

Jesus. · 17-07-2016 6:48pm

maryishere wrote: »

no but your author from Kenya was!

So that never happened?

maryishere · 17-07-2016 6:51pm

jack923 wrote: »

You know there was a boycott from catholics on that poll and that less than 1% of the Catholic population turned out to vote.

Other estimates put the Catholic turnout considerably higher than 1% but yes there was a boycott, or according to some Catholics they were intimidated by hardline Republicans not to be seen voting. Many Protestants did not vote either, but yet the poll turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums, even in this state. Catholics had the vote, but Republicans knew they had not the numbers of followers.

corner of hells · 17-07-2016 6:52pm

jack923 wrote: »

Yes but I wouldn't call those acts "heroic" why would they be heroic? Nutting was necessary yes but not heroic.

Extrajudicial murder is necessary ? Yet a"shoot to kill" policy is outrageous to you.

Jesus. · 17-07-2016 6:53pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Those who know anything about civil strife in Ireland during 1916-22 would be aware of the absence of rape.

Its a pity you didn't read my whole post before bulldozing in because if you did you'd have noticed that I said I was only trying to see how far this individual would actually go before he stood up for himself. I did not say any rape was carried out. That was easily deduced from my post.

Jesus. · 17-07-2016 6:56pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

[/I] I cannot recall mentions of rapes by RIC/B-Specials /troops in NI.

There was just prior to Aughnacloy. I say "allegedly" yet you left that out of your reports on the *OIRA. You didn't link evidence to substantiate the alleged crimes so I'd suggest you do before people take it as fact.

(*O=Old, not Official)

Jesus. · 17-07-2016 6:59pm

Mary???

jack923 · 17-07-2016 7:04pm

maryishere wrote: »

Other estimates put the Catholic turnout considerably higher than 1% but yes there was a boycott, or according to some Catholics they were intimidated by hardline Republicans not to be seen voting. Many Protestants did not vote either, but yet the poll turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums, even in this state. Catholics had the vote, but Republicans knew they had not the numbers of followers.

Yes true wether or not they were intimidated or not is up for dispute but I doubt they were intimidated, where did you even get that information from? there probably was an attitude among catholics that you shouldn't vote but I doubt that falls into intimidation.

No harm in giving catholics a vote they cannot win I suppose.

maryishere · 17-07-2016 7:04pm

Jesus. wrote: »

Mary???

Jesus??? lol

jack923 · 17-07-2016 7:07pm

corner of hells wrote: »

Extrajudicial murder is necessary ? Yet a"shoot to kill" policy is outrageous to you.

When did I say a shoot to kill policy is outrageous? You said something like members of the IRA were complaining about a shoot to kill policy and I said I would agree with you if the British acknowledged it was a war which they didn’t so there shouldn't have been a shoot to kill policy.

Jesus. · 17-07-2016 7:07pm

That's two glaring points you've failed to address Mary. I've great respect for someone who admits to having a fault in their original argument. I've a lot less for those who stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they can't hear.

corner of hells · 17-07-2016 7:15pm

jack923 wrote: »

When did I say a shoot to kill policy is outrageous? You said something like members of the IRA were complaining about a shoot to kill policy and I said I would agree with you if the British acknowledged it was a war which they didn’t so there shouldn't have been a shoot to kill policy.

Your logic is baffling " if the British acknowledge it was a war , they could have a shoot to kill policy " ? Am I right so far ?
Yet the IRA because said " it was a war " they get a carte blanche.

Oddly enough I doubt the UK would ever call it " a war " because if you think about it you can't be at war with your own citizens.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 7:39pm

corner of hells wrote: »

Your logic is baffling " if the British acknowledge it was a war , they could have a shoot to kill policy " ? Am I right so far ?
Yet the IRA because said " it was a war " they get a carte blanche.

Oddly enough I doubt the UK would ever call it " a war " because if you think about it you can't be at war with your own citizens.

Thatcher said they would treat them as a criminal gang this was the policy so if they were to treat them as a criminal gang which they weren't treating them as such then why is my logic baffling? They were saying it wasn't a war but were acting as if it was so how can you find my logic baffling?

Your logic right there when you said it wasn't a war because you can't be at war with your own citizens is baffling, does the Irish war of independence ring a bell? Or do you think that also wasn't a war?

Jesus. · 17-07-2016 7:42pm

corner of hells wrote: »

Your logic is baffling.

I think his logic is perfectly reasonable. Somebody said the IRA cried "shoot to kill" when they were killed despite them declaring it a war. He replied that the British repeatedly claimed it wasn't a war yet regularly behaved as if it was (shoot on sight, internment etc). So both sides were acting at odds to what they were saying.

It was a propaganda war as much as anything else.

maryishere · 17-07-2016 7:43pm

Jesus. wrote: »

That's two glaring points you've failed to address Mary.

What points? I am not on here 24/7. If you want to set up a thread and derail this discussion to talk about Kenya, then do so. About 6 hours ago someone was talking about armies and the IRA being at "war" and the British and Russian armies etc. I made the point the British, German, Japanese etc armies were the armies of a state. The armies of a democratically elected government. The IRA was not the army of a state or a democratically elected govt. It was more a secretive terrorist organisation than an army. Furthermore, you were complaining about the behaviour of the British army. I made the point that even among its enemies and adversaries (eg Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians ) the British were very well respected. In fact it generally did not carry out atrocities / war crimes like the Japanese, Russians, Germans etc. Of course you will tell the Kenyans there was widespread British torture and murder in N. Ireland, and vice versa, and of course the dastardly British committed dreadful war crimes in the occupied six counties. Happy now?

Now this thread is about Bobby Sands. How did he ever get a burger joint in Iran named after him?

corner of hells · 17-07-2016 7:46pm

jack923 wrote: »

Thatcher said they would treat them as a criminal gang this was the policy so if they were to treat them as a criminal gang which they weren't treating them as such then why is my logic baffling? They were saying it wasn't a war but were acting as if it was so how can you find my logic baffling?

Your logic right there when you said it wasn't a war because you can't be at war with your own citizens is baffling, does the Irish war of independence ring a bell? Or do you think that also wasn't a war?

What's disturbing , Jack , is how you comfortably violence sits with you , how you can dismiss every argument with comments suggesting subterfuge and double agents and how you seem to yearn for the years of terrorism.Three thousand dead and countless more maimed physically and mentally.

Jack , I think I'll leave it with you.

R P McMurphy · 17-07-2016 7:47pm

corner of hells wrote: »

Your logic is baffling " if the British acknowledge it was a war , they could have a shoot to kill policy " ? Am I right so far ?
Yet the IRA because said " it was a war " they get a carte blanche.

Oddly enough I doubt the UK would ever call it " a war " because if you think about it you can't be at war with your own citizens.

There are different classifications under international humanitarian law: international, non-international and internal strife

maryishere · 17-07-2016 7:51pm

jack923 wrote: »

No harm in giving catholics a vote they cannot win I suppose.

In the referendum, people were not asked if they were Catholics or not. Religion had nothing to do with it. People were asked if they wanted to stay in the UK or join the rest of Ireland. 98.9% wanted to stay in the UK.
Incidentally even nowadays, as many northern Catholics have UK passports (from their auld enemy!) as have Rep. of Ireland passports, even though they are free to have either.

Jesus. · 17-07-2016 7:53pm

maryishere wrote: »

What points? I am not on here 24/7. If you want to set up a thread and derail this discussion to talk about Kenya, then do so. About 6 hours ago someone was talking about armies and the IRA being at "war" and the British and Russian armies etc. I made the point the British, German, Japanese etc armies were the armies of a state. The armies of a democratically elected government. The IRA was not the army of a state or a democratically elected govt. It was more a secretive terrorist organisation than an army. Furthermore, you were complaining about the behaviour of the British army. I made the point that even among its enemies and adversaries (eg Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians ) the British were very well respected. In fact it generally did not carry out atrocities / war crimes like the Japanese, Russians, Germans etc. Of course you will tell the Kenyans there was widespread British torture and murder in N. Ireland, and vice versa, and of course the dastardly British committed dreadful war crimes in the occupied six counties. Happy now?Now this thread is about Bobby Sands. How did he ever get a burger joint in Iran named after him?

You don't have to be here 24/7. You were here when I replied to your erroneous statements because you subsequently went on to make other posts therefore conveniently ignoring what I called you out on. Now please, do not do so this time.

* You said both sides on the fleg burning bonfires issue were as bad as each other. I replied that (A) Its 95/5 in Unionists favour in percentage terms and (B) every nationalist politician condemns them and are actively trying to eradicate such behaviour. In the mean time unionist politicians refuse to do so and claim its "culture". Therefore both sides are not even remotely as bad as each other on this issue. Now either accept you were wrong and change your thinking or dispute these facts.

* You said the British Army are accepted as fair and even handed (even when they're dealing out death on a mass scale :rolleyes:).I gave you an example of British Army atrocities in Kenya and you said my author made it up. Regarding your instance of the Army being the instrument of democracy I asked you how many of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were butchered as a result of the US/UK invasion had a vote or a say in their own Country's near obliteration?

Please answer the first point regarding the bonfires, the second regarding Kenya and the third regarding the populations of the Countries the British invaded.

Jesus. · 17-07-2016 7:55pm

corner of hells wrote: »

What's disturbing , Jack , is how you comfortably violence sits with you.

Are you a pacifist Sir?

jack923 · 17-07-2016 7:59pm

corner of hells wrote: »

What's disturbing , Jack , is how you comfortably violence sits with you , how you can dismiss every argument with comments suggesting subterfuge and double agents and how you seem to yearn for the years of terrorism.Three thousand dead and countless more maimed physically and mentally.

Jack , I think I'll leave it with you.

You lost your argument so your now attacking my moral standpoint so I'm not even going to bother replying.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 8:04pm

maryishere wrote: »

In the referendum, people were not asked if they were Catholics or not. Religion had nothing to do with it. People were asked if they wanted to stay in the UK or join the rest of Ireland. 98.9% wanted to stay in the UK.
Incidentally even nowadays, as many northern Catholics have UK passports (from their auld enemy!) as have Rep. of Ireland passports, even though they are free to have either.

I didn't say they were? Yes people don't care anymore they just want to live in peace they are being treated equally and fairly and discrimination is now as much on the Catholic side as it is on the Protestant side.

Everyone is equal in the North now, equal opportunity and rights for everyone

jack923 · 17-07-2016 8:08pm

maryishere wrote: »

What points? I am not on here 24/7. If you want to set up a thread and derail this discussion to talk about Kenya, then do so. About 6 hours ago someone was talking about armies and the IRA being at "war" and the British and Russian armies etc. I made the point the British, German, Japanese etc armies were the armies of a state. The armies of a democratically elected government. The IRA was not the army of a state or a democratically elected govt. It was more a secretive terrorist organisation than an army. Furthermore, you were complaining about the behaviour of the British army. I made the point that even among its enemies and adversaries (eg Germans, Italians, Japanese, Russians ) the British were very well respected. In fact it generally did not carry out atrocities / war crimes like the Japanese, Russians, Germans etc. Of course you will tell the Kenyans there was widespread British torture and murder in N. Ireland, and vice versa, and of course the dastardly British committed dreadful war crimes in the occupied six counties. Happy now?

Now this thread is about Bobby Sands. How did he ever get a burger joint in Iran named after him?

The Iranians are very fond of martyrdom so they seen him as a hero and they wanted to commemorate him, might have to visit that place I wonder if the burgers taste as good as it would have for bobby sands before he died!

maryishere · 17-07-2016 8:11pm

Jesus. wrote: »

You said both sides on the fleg burning bonfires issue were as bad as each other.

And indeed there are scumbags on both sides who burn flags. Most politicians tend to stay away from such things though. One notable exception being Charles Haughey, who burnt a union jack in Dublin many years ago. (1945 as far as I remember).

Jesus. wrote: »

I replied that (A) Its 95/5 in Unionists favour in percentage terms

And have you a link? What makes you think its 95/5, and not 70/30 or 98/2?
Many bonfires do not feature the burning of flags. Not all areas have bonfires.

Jesus. wrote: »

and (B) every nationalist politician condemns them and are actively trying to eradicate such behaviour. In the mean time unionist politicians refuse to do so and claim its "culture".

Have you a link for that claim?

Jesus. wrote: »

You said the British Army are accepted as fair and even handed

Generally and historically speaking, yes. Compared to Germans, Japanese, Russians etc.

Jesus. wrote: »

Regarding your instance of the Army being the instrument of democracy I asked you how many of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were butchered as a result of the US/UK invasion had a vote or a say in their own Country's near obliteration?

Britain did not invade, rape or loot Kuwait in Gulf war 1, Iraq did. The UK was one of dozens of nations which helped liberate it. In Gulf war 2, the British wore soft hats and tried to help the locals by building clean water supplies etc.
The British and Americans reached Bagdad without the need to butcher anyone, and were welcomed. And the current carnage in Iraq is largely between different sects of Islam. Thousands of Iraqis are seeking entry / asylum in the UK, not one British or Irish person is seeking asylum in Iraq afaik.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 8:19pm

maryishere wrote: »

And indeed there are scumbags on both sides who burn flags. Most politicians tend to stay away from such things though. One notable exception being Charles Haughey, who burnt a union jack in Dublin many years ago. (1945 as far as I remember).

And have you a link? What makes you think its 95/5, and not 70/30 or 98/2?
Many bonfires do not feature the burning of flags. Not all areas have bonfires.

Have you a link for that claim?

Generally and historically speaking, yes. Compared to Germans, Japanese, Russians etc.

Britain did not invade, rape or loot Kuwait in Gulf war 1, Iraq did. The UK was one of dozens of nations which helped liberate it. In Gulf war 2, the British wore soft hats and tried to help the locals by building clean water supplies etc.
The British and Americans reached Bagdad without the need to butcher anyone, and were welcomed. And the current carnage in Iraq is largely between different sects of Islam. Thousands of Iraqis are seeking entry / asylum in the UK, not one British or Irish person is seeking asylum in Iraq afaik.

Is that why they are being done for so many war crimes in Iraq? I remember a video from a while back of a bunch of British soldiers laughing while beating up young teenagers.

Historically they were not good, historically they are the worst in all of history and also you can't say they were good because japan and russia done worse things in recent history that's like me saying the IRA are good because of ISIS.

17-07-2016 8:20pm

maryishere wrote: »

Other estimates put the Catholic turnout considerably higher than 1% but yes there was a boycott, or according to some Catholics they were intimidated by hardline Republicans not to be seen voting. Many Protestants did not vote either, but yet the poll turnout was 58.66% of Electorate, which is not far off most other elections / referendums, even in this state. Catholics had the vote, but Republicans knew they had not the numbers of followers.

How convenient of you to forget to say that Gerry Fitt and the SDLP told voters to boycott the poll.

alastair · 17-07-2016 8:21pm

jack923 wrote: »

The Iranians are very fond of martyrdom so they seen him as a hero and they wanted to commemorate him, might have to visit that place I wonder if the burgers taste as good as it would have for bobby sands before he died!

The Iranians couldn't give a toss about Bobby Sands or the IRA. They merely used his name as a convenient way to irritate the British - who they did give a toss about, given their history in the country.

What I don't get is that a fellah like yourself, who is clearly not up to speed as to the facts of the conflict in NI, can manage to rationalise all less palatable aspects of the 'ra into supposed 'dirty tricks' by securocrats and loyalists, and blithely roll out completely false statistics regarding the civilian deaths they were responsible for, all the while conveniently forgetting that the majority of Catholics in NI made their democratic choice in supporting non-violent representatives, who made very clear that the IRA campaign would achieve no United Ireland, nor any withdrawal of troops. Of course they were right. It shines out like a beacon, that you are too young to understand the realities of the troubles, and choices people made, or refused to make, in the face of the ****ty options being advocated by the intransigent on all sides.

maryishere · 17-07-2016 8:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

How convenient of you to forget to say that Gerry Fitt and the SDLP told voters to boycott the poll.

Not all Catholics voted for Gerry Fitt and the SDLP.
Not all Catholics voted (or vote) for nationalist parties even.
The vote - and democracy - was open to all.

jack923 · 17-07-2016 8:30pm

alastair wrote: »

The Iranians couldn't give a toss about Bobby Sands or the IRA. They merely used his name as a convenient way to irritate the British - who they did give a toss about, given their history in the country.

What I don't get is that a fellah like yourself, who is clearly not up to speed as to the facts of the conflict in NI, can manage to rationalise all less palatable aspects of the 'ra into supposed 'dirty tricks' by securocrats and loyalists, and blithely roll out completely false statistics regarding the civilian deaths they were responsible for, all the while conveniently forgetting that the majority of Catholics in NI made their democratic choice in supporting non-violent representatives, who made very clear that the IRA campaign would achieve no United Ireland, nor any withdrawal of troops. Of course they were right. It shines out like a beacon, that you are too young to understand the realities of the troubles, and choices people made, or refused to make, in the face of the ****ty options being advocated by the intransigent on all sides.

They do give a toss about him wether that was a motivation of theirs probably actually not probably it was but they do respect him.

I'm not going to reply to anything else if you want to tell me what I was lying about and the statistics I made up I will gladly answer them.

enricoh · 17-07-2016 8:32pm

We'll turning the other cheek wasn't exactly getting the Catholics anywhere in the late 60's so what else were they supposed to do?
Give up ? Or fight back? They fought back and as a result Catholics now have equal rights in northern Ireland. It's a pity that violence was needed but what else are u going to do when mobs are ethnic cleansing your neighbourhood by burning ye out and the cops couldn't care less.

17-07-2016 8:34pm

maryishere wrote: »

Not all Catholics voted for Gerry Fitt and the SDLP.
Not all Catholics voted (or vote) for nationalist parties even.
The vote - and democracy - was open to all.

Its a poll that doesn't carry an ounce of credibility and to pass it off as an accurate opinion on the constitutional question at that time leaves one open to accusations of ridicule. It was the BBC that claimed only about 1% of Catholics voted in it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/newsid_2516000/2516477.stm

maryishere · 17-07-2016 8:34pm

jack923 wrote: »

Is that why they are being done for so many war crimes in Iraq?

No sizeable war crimes have come to light.

jack923 wrote: »

I remember a video from a while back of a bunch of British soldiers laughing while beating up young teenagers.

I remember a video of young teenagers laughing when other young Iraqi teenagers got beheaded but if you have a link to the worst war crime of all time, a bunch of soldiers laughing while beating up young teenagers, perhaps you would share it?

jack923 wrote: »

Historically they were not good, historically they are the worst in all of history.

Yeah, right.

maryishere · 17-07-2016 8:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a poll that doesn't carry an ounce of credibility

Nevertheless the vote - and democracy - was open to all. Nobody can deny the majority of people in all Northern elections wanted to stay part of the UK.

maryishere · 17-07-2016 8:41pm

enricoh wrote: »

They fought back and as a result Catholics now have equal rights in northern Ireland. It's a pity that violence was needed .

Many notable Catholics in the RUC including RUC Chief Constable Sir James Flanagan, who survived an IRA assassination attempt; Deputy Chief Constable Michael McAtamney; Assistant Chief Constable Cathal Ramsey; Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan,and Superintendents Kevin Benedict Sheehy and Brendan McGuigan, would disagree with you that Catholics did not have equal rights for most of the 70's, 80, 90's, and that violence was needed.

The story of what led bobby sands to join the IRA

Comments