On this day in 1981 Bobby Sands began his Hunger Strike

Santa Cruz · 12-03-2014 2:35pm

"Without doubt internationally respected"

More Provo propaganda. Probably a few streets named after in him in such predictable spots such as Baghdad or Havana. The list all the capitals /countries that give him no recognition (or have never heard of him) will take a lot longer.

jonniebgood1 · 13-03-2014 8:51am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I see no justification to extol Sands; he was a misguided young man who was callously manipulated by others. The fact that he is celebrated outside Ireland is irrelevant, and probably as a result of a political agenda (as, for e.g. in Iran).

Your more recent reply shows the wide ranging international reaction to the death, much more than Iranian ire as first suggested. Your post below emphasises that with number of countries listed. The derisory comments (such as "big deal") do nothing to lessen the message that Sands death did mean something to the international community.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I did not mean it as a 'dismissal' - it is representative of fact, which available if you look behind what is written/quoted in CAIN.

Apart from the antics of students (which one would expect to be anti-establishment anyway) the general tone of international official comment was slightly tut tut, condemnatory of the events but not supportive of Sands or the IRA. Diplomatically that is a very strong signal.

Belgium – students protested, attacked a British consulate. Big Deal.

France – The history of violent protest in France is worth a study in itself but by French standards Sands’ death was a non-event. No town halls burned, riots, nothing of consequence. A few small streets in minor towns (e.g. Le Mans, Vierzon, Nantes) were named after him. Most French towns have streets named after foreigners – for e.g. there are DOZENS of streets named after JFK. (TOT but there is only one street in Paris , a tiny lane, named after Napoleon.)

Germany - the Government said nothing and the main paper (Die Welt) said that the British Government was right because Sands was trying to blackmail the state with his life. Moreover, Germany was hardly a big ally of GB at that date, so more can be read into the comment/lack thereof.

Hong Kong - The main English paper, the Standard said it was 'sad that successive British governments have failed to end the last of Europe's religious wars'. While that is a BS comment, any inference must be taken in the context of that era, at a time when there were diplomatic games being played between China and GB, coupled with electoral reform in HK as a foundation to the strategies for the eventual handover/departure of Britain.

India - As a former colony one would expect strong words of reproof against the old masters, but that did not really happen. The Hindustan Times said Thatcher had allowed a fellow MP to starve to death, which is rather specious. A small number of Opposition members in the Rajya/Upper House stood for a minute’s silence. Indira Gandhi, main party leader refused to partake in that little side-show. That was an important message – her father, Nehru, was the Mahatma’s political heir, and she was allied with nationalist sentiment. She did nothing. And while we are on the Gandhi name, significantly, the Chicago Tribune (which in those days was a great paper) wrote that Gandhi used his hunger strike to get his countrymen to abstain from civil war and that Sands' deliberate slow suicide was intended to precipitate civil war.

Italy In Rome the President of the Italian Senate, Fanfani, expressed condolences to the Sands family. He was an interesting character, a fascist who turned lefty, so his socialist ideals were at one with the IRA. And as usual a bunch of students burned a union Jack. Well, that's Italy and Fanfani is the guy who once held a government together for 23 days!

Portugal - members of the Opposition stood for a minute's silence. Bet that impressed everybody.

Spain - the Ya newspaper described Sands's hunger strike as 'subjectively an act of heroism' . Whatever that means, but then what would one expect from an ultra right-wing paper that effectively was an organ of the Catholic Church.... Competitor, ABC which was more monarchist, said Sands was 'a political kamikaze who had got his strategy wrong.'

USA The US Government issued a statement expressing deep regret. I mean, with the importance of the Irish vote in the US, with Tip O’Neill as Speaker of the House, and the general ignorance of the Irish community on Irish affairs, what would you expect them to do/say?
The Longshoremen's Union announced a twenty-four-hour boycott of British ships. Those guys are dockers, would not know where Ireland is on a map and are 6,000 miles away - or more if you go by ship.
The New Jersey State legislature voted 34-29 for a resolution honouring Sands' 'courage and commitment'. Nice kick to touch that!
In NYC at St Patrick's Cathedral there was a Mass of reconciliation for Northern Ireland. That really worked!
Irish bars in NYC city closed for two hours in mourning. Two hours? Big deal, a blend of assuaging customer sentiment with a keen eye on the bottom line!
The New York Times said: 'Despite proximity and a common language the British have persistently misjudged the depth of Irish nationalism.'
Rather Wildean, no?

So, worldwide, among the little people, nothing much happened. Worldwide, among the people who do count, or care, or have real influence, Sands’ death was a non event. And still is; water under the bridge.
I'll stop there.

Jawgap · 13-03-2014 9:22am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your more recent reply shows the wide ranging international reaction to the death, much more than Iranian ire as first suggested. Your post below emphasises that with number of countries listed. The derisory comments (such as "big deal") do nothing to lessen the message that Sands death did mean something to the international community.

No doubt it did mean something at the time, not so much now, beyond a minority who would like to believe he was more significant than he actually was - in contrast to someone like McSwiney.

The the OP said

Throughout the world Bobby Sands is held up as a figure of resistance and equality and is internationally respected... but not so much by authorities in his own country.

Is there any evidence to suggest that today or currently he is held up as a figure of resistance and equality? (and I mean in a meaningful way, not just in a niche, minority way).

......and where is the evidence that he is internationally respected - the use of the word 'is' suggests that the respect is also current - where is the evidence for that?

Plus, if we're being honest, that oft repeated quote about laughing grandchildren is pretty rubbish - it lacks depth, insight and emotion.

pedroeibar1 · 13-03-2014 11:44am

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Your more recent reply shows the wide ranging international reaction to the death, much more than Iranian ire as first suggested. Your post below emphasises that with number of countries listed. The derisory comments (such as "big deal") do nothing to lessen the message that Sands death did mean something to the international community.

That response is in my view considerably beneath your usual level of comment.

I acknowledged that Sands’ death meant something, but the entire thrust of my argument was that it was no big deal at an international political level. The implication throughout my remarks was to suggest that Sands place in international history is dead, forgotten by all but for a few ‘wonks’ and some people in Ireland who, now as back then wish to use him for propaganda purposes. That remains the case, as the OP ‘s claim that Sands is internationally respected as a figure of equality etc. is a nonsense. Read the OP, its language, and the subsequent failure of the poster to substantiate anything that supports a claim couched in student rhetoric with BS on grandchildren. Arguably the OP is a political statement rather than one of historical intent and as such has been continued by the OP (and I won’t bother to detail the OP’s subsequent childish remarks such as the misspelled French and the coat trailing in #49.)

In the earlier post, I cited just one example of support derived from political motivation – Iran -, who wished to give 2 fingers to Britain by renaming the street on which the Brit. embassy stood. Is it henceforth necessary to quote multiple examples? On being ‘pushed’ I gave several other examples as to why there were political agendas behind the remarks. Do you honestly believe that a few once-off protests by students in a few overseas cities, or a few moments of silence by minor opposition parties (overseas) mean anything to any government, more particularly to a powerful one whose leader was christened the Iron Lady? What did all those protests achieve? or change? Using a contemporary event as an example, last week Eamon Gilmore spoke out strongly and wagged the finger at Putin on Crimea. Do you really think that Putin is losing sleep over that, a remark, not by students or an opposition politician, but one by a Deputy PM of an EU country? Skibereen Eagle comes to mind.

What is incorrect about my comments on the political ideology of the parties who observed silence? Not one power of note condemned the UK’s stance, instead they expressed ‘regret’ or sent ‘condolences’ to the family, or organized a 'mass of condolence'. In international ‘diplomatic speak’ it was as I said ‘tut, tut’, and nothing more. If I really wanted to be argumentative I could posit that most political influencers were condemnatory of Sands, with comments such as ‘blackmail’ and ‘misguided kamikaze’.

Incidentally, on street renaming in France it’s done at ‘Commune’ level **, so it’s quite an easy process, rarely taken seriously because of the political overtone attached to the process and frequently for that reason it becomes a joke topic – as it would have been in Dublin if the council called that new bridge ‘the bridge of the 1914-1918 failed to return home’ (or whatever suchlike was being put forward.)

Like the vast majority of people in the 'south' I have no interest in the radical politics of the 'north' and I regard the fanatics on both extremes with equal distaste. They are total dreamers, bigots and have no conception of the economic realities involved. As Behan said, 'Ireland, Mother Ireland, you're rearing them yet!'

** The Commune of St. Denis, Paris, in which there is a Bobby Sands St., is a bastion of the French Communist Party, and has been controlled by the communists since at least 1922 (with a brief interlude during WW2). The mayor in 1981 was Marcelin Berthelot

riffmongous · 13-03-2014 10:33pm

But is it not possible that the nature of the group to which Sands belonged would be the reason why no government was willing to say anything other than 'tut tut' publicly? I mean you dismiss the examples of governments that supported him (correctly too i believe, dont get me wrong) as being politically motivated, but I would also dismiss the silence of other governments as politically motivated.

Say for example Germany,

Germany - the Government said nothing and the main paper (Die Welt) said that the British Government was right because Sands was trying to blackmail the state with his life. Moreover, Germany was hardly a big ally of GB at that date, so more can be read into the comment/lack thereof.

at the time they would have had troubles with the RAF, it would certainly not be in their interests to support any sort of political radicals in another country.

pedroeibar1 · 14-03-2014 1:18am

riffmongous wrote: »

But is it not possible that the nature of the group to which Sands belonged would be the reason why no government was willing to say anything other than 'tut tut' publicly? I mean you dismiss the examples of governments that supported him (correctly too i believe, dont get me wrong) as being politically motivated, but I would also dismiss the silence of other governments as politically motivated.

Say for example Germany,

at the time they would have had troubles with the RAF, it would certainly not be in their interests to support any sort of political radicals in another country.

I agree, Germany (and many others) learned hugely from where one could end up as a result of appeasement and acceptance of the demands of RAF/BM and their like. If a foreign policeman put a bullet in a ‘deserving’ head, well, just look the other way, because it could be the turn of one of yours to do it next week. The French knew this, they had long experience of ‘disappearing’ people or simply shoving a few dozen unconscious protesters into a river. In that era the US had gone from VietNam with dirty hands and was up to its neck in torture/subversion in South America (and many other places.)

Interfering in another country’s internal affairs was/is not done, unless that country is ‘on the way out’. The fall-out is too considerable, a classic example is the follow-on to CJH’s comments / antics on the sinking of the Belgrano. More recently it was fine for Obama et al to put the boot into Assad/Syria at the beginning of his internal strife, but when it looked he was here to stay, the international community backed off and instead goes ‘tut, tut’ and mumbles / witters on about 'humanitarian tragedy.'

But a comparison between the IRA and the RAF is not a very good one, the IRA was much more professional but less ‘personally committed’ than the RAF, who were suicidal, more akin to the output of the more rabid madrassas. When caught, the RAF ‘languished’ in a German prison, extra-big cells, TVs, personal libraries, etc, with the support of biased media comment from the Left (poseurs like Boll and Sartre) and crooked lawyers who smuggled them dope and whatever else they needed. One story I remember is that they insisted on having electric blankets in their cells (brought a different meaning to being ‘on the blanket’). This meant that the electricity had to be left on all night and they were able to tap into the prison speaker system to establish a communications network. The raid on the hijacked plane (a hijack co-arranged by BM/RAF with the PLO) at Mogadishu was a turning point for Germany’s attitude.

Not a lot to do with Sands, but it paints a backdrop and puts political response in a historical perspective.

tac foley · 14-03-2014 11:51am

Just to put things into prespective with regard to the activities of the Red Army Faction ak RAF, and those of the so-called 'Troubles #2' - to differentiate that period from the Troubles #1, let's look at the total casualties in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1981. Perhaps then some of you might see why Mr Sands' decision to starve himself to death had rather less resonance than you might have wished for among those of a less-than-impressed world-wide audience.

Total DEATHS in Northern Ireland - Period 1969 - 1981. The injured are not noted, but can reasonably be expected to be at least twice to three times these total amounts.

Civilians - 1261

British military - 712

Republican Paramilitary - 242

Loyalist Paramilitary - 78

If seeing a reminder of the numbers of innocent people reduced to bloody pulp by bombs or left bleeding in the streets and hedgerows from the combined efforts of the late Mr Sands and his pals causes offence........

Tough.

tac

ChicagoJoe · 14-03-2014 3:41pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

No country will give in to blackmail, which effectively is what the strike amounted to. The outcome was a forgone conclusion under any leader, and that does not even take into account the 'Iron Lady' rule of Thatcher.

Well if you happen to construe that this form of non violent resistance was blackmail, I'm sure you fully supported the British actions with regard to Terence McSwiney, Thomas Ashe etc in the early part of the last century. ( Indeed since others such as Ghandi, suffragettes, used hunger strike against the British Govt of the day, I'm sure you would be quite admiring of the Brits stance against non violent resistance - even though the Britain were probably one of the most violent imperialists in history ).

The New York Times said: 'Despite proximity and a common language the British have persistently misjudged the depth of Irish nationalism.'

When the New York Times comments on an issue, then you couldn't make the point better that his death was indeed an international issue. Not as big say as Nelson Mandela's passing, but to try and suggest after mentioning the various countries where it was an issue and then claiming it wasn't an international issue is just shooting yourself in the foot. It's the type of waffle that we'd come expect from the Sunday Independent or some other comic.

riffmongous · 14-03-2014 4:46pm

My intention wasn't to compare to IRA and RAF in any other way than as destabilising political forces and point out why a country might not want to comment on another countries problems, which could explain the lack of official response to Sand's death.

pedroeibar1 · 14-03-2014 5:42pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Well if you happen to construe that this form of non violent resistance was blackmail, I'm sure you fully supported the British actions with regard to Terence McSwiney, Thomas Ashe etc in the early part of the last century. ( Indeed since others such as Ghandi, suffragettes, used hunger strike against the British Govt of the day, I'm sure you would be quite admiring of the Brits stance against non violent resistance - even though the Britain were probably one of the most violent imperialists in history ).

When the New York Times comments on an issue, then you couldn't make the point better that his death was indeed an international issue. Not as big say as Nelson Mandela's passing, but to try and suggest after mentioning the various countries where it was an issue and then claiming it wasn't an international issue is just shooting yourself in the foot. It's the type of waffle that we'd come expect from the Sunday Independent or some other comic.

Death is the ultimate form of violence; suicide is the ultimate form of self-violence. Threatening to do violence to achieve an end is blackmail. Does not matter who does it, but the ethics of the matter are more debatable when the blackmailer has a huge degree of support, e.g. Gandhi, Mandela, McSwiney.

To compare Sands to McSwiney (as you are trying to do) is both unrealistic and total non sequitur. McSwiney had the support of a huge part of the national population and was elected unopposed by his local population. Sands was elected by a very narrow margin in a contested election and out of electorate of 60,000 he got a shade over 50% of the vote. He did not have national support, because the IRA had no mandate from the vast bulk of the population of this island. In the 1981 election (26 counties) the Anti-H-Block people fielded 12 candidate and just 2 (both hungerstrikers, in border counties) got in. That result was the vast majority of the 26 county’s population telling the HBlock/IRA that ‘we do not support you’. The main reason is given in the death figures posted by TAC Foley above.

The IRA (and their Loyalist counterparts) still have no mandate, unless you want their thugs to support a side-line business in bank raids, drug dealing or fuel laundering.

Your comment on Sands getting a mention in the NYT being a claim to 'international status' well just a month ago I was struck by the headline ‘A Cleavage Trend Reveals a More Natural Décolletage for Hollywood Stars on the Red Carpet.’ The amount of some starlet’s flesh on show at an awards ceremony is hardly in international issue, yet it drew a big headline and a long article..

None of those who posted here in support of Sands have been able to say what benefit he could have brought to this country. Neither you nor the OP has contributed any serious way (apart from misty-eyed sentimentalism) to support your claims on what Sands achieved or on my comment

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt (the convicted Omagh bomber) has always been against the Belfast Agreement and its tenets, stating that "Bobby did not die for cross-border bodies with executive powers.’ (English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, p 316–317) She and her husband were founder members of the The 32 County Sovereignty Movement, generally accepted as the political wing of the RIRA.

So, simple Yes or No, do you support what Sands main torchbearers stand for and are saying today?

tac foley · 14-03-2014 6:10pm

riffmongous wrote: »

My intention wasn't to compare to IRA and RAF in any other way than as destabilising political forces and point out why a country might not want to comment on another countries problems, which could explain the lack of official response to Sand's death.

On the other hand, it might be construed that the late Mr Sands was world famous in Ballysomewhere, but meant little or nothing to the rest of the world as a whole. Especially one where public explosions and brutal murders were not the accepted methods of expressing a diversity of political opinion.

tac

riffmongous · 14-03-2014 7:27pm

tac foley wrote: »

On the other hand, it might be construed that the late Mr Sands was world famous in Ballysomewhere, but meant little or nothing to the rest of the world as a whole. Especially one where public explosions and brutal murders were not the accepted methods of expressing a diversity of political opinion.

tac

Maybe, judging from the evidence above I would say at the time it would have meant something, but nowadays? I think the whole NI conflict and Sands mean little to the rest of the world and increasingly so to people in Ireland itself.

But on your second point well you can still get plenty of support for individuals and groups that were complicit in murder in most of the world, for political and social reasons.

ChicagoJoe · 16-03-2014 5:25pm

tac foley wrote: »

Just to put things into prespective with regard to the activities of the Red Army Faction ak RAF, and those of the so-called 'Troubles #2' - to differentiate that period from the Troubles #1, let's look at the total casualties in Northern Ireland between 1969 and 1981. Perhaps then some of you might see why Mr Sands' decision to starve himself to death had rather less resonance than you might have wished for among those of a less-than-impressed world-wide audience.

Total DEATHS in Northern Ireland - Period 1969 - 1981. The injured are not noted, but can reasonably be expected to be at least twice to three times these total amounts.

Civilians - 1261

British military - 712

Republican Paramilitary - 242

Loyalist Paramilitary - 78

If seeing a reminder of the numbers of innocent people reduced to bloody pulp by bombs or left bleeding in the streets and hedgerows from the combined efforts of the late Mr Sands and his pals causes offence........

Tough.

tac

Here we go the strawman sock puppet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_sockpuppet#Strawman_sockpuppet

ChicagoJoe · 16-03-2014 5:40pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Death is the ultimate form of violence; suicide is the ultimate form of self-violence. Threatening to do violence to achieve an end is blackmail. Does not matter who does it, but the ethics of the matter are more debatable when the blackmailer has a huge degree of support, e.g. Gandhi, Mandela, McSwiney.

Grand, you couldn't hav legitimized Bobby Sands better. It's laughable how you are so concerned about so called blackmail or violence by McSwiney etc while ignoring in the equation easily one of the violent blackmailers in history Britain.

To compare Sands to McSwiney (as you are trying to do) is both unrealistic and total non sequitur. McSwiney had the support of a huge part of the national population and was elected unopposed by his local population. Sands was elected by a very narrow margin in a contestedelection and out of electorate of 60,000 he got a shade over 50% of the vote. He did not have national support, because the IRA had no mandate from the vast bulk of the population of this island. In the 1981 election (26 counties) the Anti-H-Block people fielded 12 candidate and just 2(both hungerstrikers, in border counties) got in. That result was the vast majority of the 26 county’s population telling the HBlock/IRA that ‘we do not support you’. The main reason is given in the death figures posted by TAC Foley above.

The IRA (and their Loyalist counterparts) still have no mandate, unless you want their thugs to support a side-line business in bank raids, drug dealing or fuel laundering.

If caring for mandates or national support meant anything, the British wouldn't have occupied Ireland or anywhere else for that matter. And you'll find that the loyalists counterparts were the RUC, B Specials, British army etc which the IRA were opposing. What could be more British than murdering and intimidating the natives eh ?

Your comment on Sands getting a mention in the NYT being a claim to 'international status' well just a month ago I was struck by the headline ‘A Cleavage Trend Reveals a More Natural Décolletage for Hollywood Stars on the Red Carpet.’ The amount of some starlet’s flesh on show at an awards ceremony is hardly in international issue, yet it drew a big headline and a long article..

None of those who posted here in support of Sands have been able to say what benefit he could have brought to this country. Neither you nor the OP has contributed any serious way (apart from misty-eyed sentimentalism) to support your claims on what Sands achieved or on my comment

Hopeless attempt at humour :rolleyes:

tac foley · 16-03-2014 6:01pm

I post facts and you post personal insults.

Shame, Sir.

When 'the British occupied Ireland' at the request of an Irish king, I recall, the words mandate and civil rights had yet to be written. Classing the British Army as the 'loyalist counterparts' of anything is a measure of your ignorance about the British Army.

However, it is all too easy for a post like this to degenerate into one where worship of the the sainted bomber and murderer, the late Mr Sands hides the real reason why this post was put here in the first place.

That was quite simply, IMO to create a divisive thread, to divide the forum into the Mr Sands' worshippers, and those who would have quite liked to have strangled him and all his pals with barbed wire.

In this aim, the post has succeeded admirably.

tac

Jawgap · 16-03-2014 7:09pm

tac foley wrote: »

I post facts and you post personal insults.

Shame, Sir.

When 'the British occupied Ireland' at the request of an Irish king, I recall, the words mandate and civil rights had yet to be written. Classing the British Army as the 'loyalist counterparts' of anything is a measure of your ignorance about the British Army.

However, it is all too easy for a post like this to degenerate into one where worship of the the sainted bomber and murderer, the late Mr Sands hides the real reason why this post was put here in the first place.

That was quite simply, IMO to create a divisive thread, to divide the forum into the Mr Sands' worshippers, and those who would have quite liked to have strangled him and all his pals with barbed wire.

In this aim, the post has succeeded admirably.

tac

I think you may have overlooked the fact that before the arrival of the British, admittedly at the behest of an Irish noble and authorised by an English pope, Brehon law prevailed in Ireland.

Compared to English common law it had relatively well advanced and even recognisably modern concepts such as equality of the sexes, copyright, partitive inheritance, etc.

In many ways, it was far superior to what replaced it, including the fact it drew its authority from the community rather than from the 'king.' Kingship and sovereignty in pre-Norman Ireland were less absolute than what operated in England.

.......and the Tudor Reconquest was not carried out at the behest or request of anyone in Ireland - it was driven by the English parliament's desire to reassert central control over the island.

tac foley · 16-03-2014 8:23pm

Hey, don't blame me. My family [father's] were either peasants in Ireland, or moneylenders and hated, feared and loathed in France [mother's].

What little I know about Brehon Law I've gleaned from the writings of Peter Tremayne and his 'Fidelma' who-dunnits.

All seemed very well-thought-out an eminently fair and reasonable to me - the fine system seems to have worked particularly well.

However, from what I've since read, Brehon law did not, it seems support mass murder of innocents, nor support suicide as a form of blackmail.

However, we digress.

Back to the re-burgeoning hatred, eh?

tac, safely home in deepest SE Ontario.

tac foley · 16-03-2014 8:31pm

Jawgap wrote: »

I think you may have overlooked the fact that before the arrival of the British...

At that time there were NO British. The 'invited' invaders were Anglo-French, and a whole lot more French than Anglo.

The Norman invasion of Ireland was a two-stage process, which began on 1 May 1169 when a force of loosely associated NORMAN knights landed near Bannow, County Wexford at the request of Diarmait Mac Murchada, the ousted King of Leinster, who sought their help in regaining his kingdom.
On 18 October 1171, Henry II landed a much bigger army in Waterford to ensure his continuing control over the preceding Norman force. In the process he took Dublin and had accepted the fealty of the Irish kings and bishops by 1172, so creating the Lordship of Ireland, which formed part of his Angevin empire.

Anyhow, the later Tudor invasion didn't go all that well, as Fiach MacHugh O'Byrne proved at the Battle of Carlow.

I'm sure you know the song.

tac

Jawgap · 16-03-2014 8:48pm

tac foley wrote: »

At that time there were NO British. The 'invited' invaders were Anglo-French, and a whole lot more French than Anglo.

The Norman invasion of Ireland was a two-stage process, which began on 1 May 1169 when a force of loosely associated NORMAN knights landed near Bannow, County Wexford at the request of Diarmait Mac Murchada, the ousted King of Leinster, who sought their help in regaining his kingdom.
On 18 October 1171, Henry II landed a much bigger army in Waterford to ensure his continuing control over the preceding Norman force. In the process he took Dublin and had accepted the fealty of the Irish kings and bishops by 1172, so creating the Lordship of Ireland, which formed part of his Angevin empire.

Anyhow, the later Tudor invasion didn't go all that well, as Fiach MacHugh O'Byrne proved at the Battle of Carlow.

I'm sure you know the song.

tac

The invasion was multi-stage and I was taking issue with the idea you suggested that ".....the words mandate and civil rights had yet to be written."

Just because the sovereign-centric common law had yet to embrace those concepts didn't mean that they didn't exist. The Cambro-Norman 'invasion' - effectively an elite transfer - disrupted a society that in many ways was politically, legally and economically more advanced than the arrivistes.

What it did lack was the relatively advanced military technology and especially the use of castles to dominate rather than fortify.

pedroeibar1 · 16-03-2014 11:14pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Grand, you couldn't hav legitimized Bobby Sands better. It's laughable how you are so concerned about so called blackmail or violence by McSwiney etc while ignoring in the equation easily one of the violent blackmailers in history Britain.

If caring for mandates or national support meant anything, the British wouldn't have occupied Ireland or anywhere else for that matter. And you'll find that the loyalists counterparts were the RUC, B Specials, British army etc which the IRA were opposing. What could be more British than murdering and intimidating the natives eh ?

Hopeless attempt at humour :rolleyes:

What a series of inane remarks replete with clichéd BS and childish emoticons. All in an effort to avoid a response to my basic question. You cannot even rise to the adroitness of weasel words.
So, unless you answer the basic question asked of you (and of the OP) you have neither the strength of your convictions nor the honesty to show your beliefs. I will repeat what I wrote:

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt (the convicted Omagh bomber) has always been against the Belfast Agreement and its tenets, stating that "Bobby did not die for cross-border bodies with executive powers.’ (English, Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA, p 316–317) She and her husband were founder members of The 32 County Sovereignty Movement, generally accepted as the political wing of the RIRA.
So, simple Yes or No, do you support what Sands main torchbearers stand for and are saying today?

A simple yes or no is all that is required, otherwise you show yourself for what you are.

ChicagoJoe · 18-03-2014 5:49pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

What a series of inane remarks replete with clichéd BS and childish emoticons. All in an effort to avoid a response to my basic question. You cannot even rise to the adroitness of weasel words.
So, unless you answer the basic question asked of you (and of the OP) you have neither the strength of your convictions nor the honesty to show your beliefs. I will repeat what I wrote:

A simple yes or no is all that is required, otherwise you show yourself for what you are.

Your the one who claims that "The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt " - not me !! But if there was one good thing that Thatcher did in her lifetime and it was to introduce the Anglo Irish Agreement after the hunger strikes to the anger of unionism. Like I stated, it knocked unionism off it's perch from which it has not recovered or ever will

pedroeibar1 · 18-03-2014 6:16pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Your the one who claims that "The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt " - not me !!

No, I gave a source and asked a question that remains unanswered.
A simple yes or no is all that is required, otherwise you show yourself for what you are.

Jawgap · 18-03-2014 6:24pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Your the one who claims that "The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt " - not me !! But if there was one good thing that Thatcher did in her lifetime and it was to introduce the Anglo Irish Agreement after the hunger strikes to the anger of unionism. Like I stated, it knocked unionism off it's perch from which it has not recovered or ever will

Knocked unionism of its perch? Thatcher was the leader of a party called the Conservative and UNIONIST Party (think it still is) - I'm not sure she would have endured if she knocked her own party of a perch.

I'm open to correction, but I think the Anglo Irish agreement drew in cross-party support when it was debated in Westminster - aside from the usual holdouts.

pedroeibar1 · 18-03-2014 6:47pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Knocked unionism of its perch? Thatcher was the leader of a party called the Conservative and UNIONIST Party (think it still is) .........I'm not sure she would have endured if she knocked her own party of a perch.

Agreed. Officially it is the Conservative and Unionist Party, abbreviated usually to the Conservative Party. I'm not going down the road of a debate on Thatcher or the other red herrings introduced by the OP or C Joe. The topic is about Sands and the issue that remains unanswered by them are their hero worship claims on the alleged 'benefit' Sands could have brought to modern Ireland when many of those historically closely associated with him are RIRA thugs. Not that I expect an erudite, or even straightforward honest answer......

tac foley · 18-03-2014 7:18pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Your the one who claims that "The main ‘torchbearer’ is his sister, married to McKevitt " - not me !! But if there was one good thing that Thatcher did in her lifetime and it was to introduce the Anglo Irish Agreement after the hunger strikes to the anger of unionism. Like I stated, it knocked unionism off it's perch from which it has not recovered or ever will

..which of course is why the North of Ireland is not only still part of the United Kingdom, but is also safe in that status in perpetuity due to the government of the republic of Ireland having renounced all claims to unification.

tac

Jawgap · 18-03-2014 7:27pm

tac foley wrote: »

..which of course is why the North of Ireland is not only still part of the United Kingdom, but is also safe in that status in perpetuity due to the government of the republic of Ireland having renounced all claims to unification.

tac

Actually we didn't

We revised art 3 to say

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland
shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island.

...........

We removed the territorial claim.

tac foley · 18-03-2014 8:51pm

Let's be realistic here, Sir, it being the expressed will of the Irish nation who live in your part of Ireland, you will see President Putin as Queen of the May before you see the Ulster Unionists agree to the surrender of their sovereignty to an all-Ireland form of wholly independent government outside the United Kingdom.

tac

Jawgap · 18-03-2014 9:08pm

tac foley wrote: »

Let's be realistic here, Sir, it being the expressed will of the Irish nation who live in your part of Ireland, you will see President Putin as Queen of the May before you see the Ulster Unionists agree to the surrender of their sovereignty to an all-Ireland form of wholly independent government outside the United Kingdom.

tac

I wasn't suggesting that the island would be unified. In fact, I strongly doubt it will ever happen. Even when demographics take their natural course and the nationalists are in the majority, they won't vote for it. They may aspire, but self-interest indicates they won't follow through.

I was just pointing out you seem not to have understood the changes we voted through on our constitution.........sir.

tac foley · 18-03-2014 9:17pm

Thank you for the explanation, and for the corrections. I agree that it is unlikely in the extreme.

In any case, I sense that you are insulted, for some reason, by my use of the polite address 'Sir'. You don't use your real name, as I do, so I have no idea what your real name is, and we have never been introduced, nor are we ever likely to be. I was brought up to call anybody whose name was not known to me, but with whom I nevertheless had some kind of social interaction - such as that found on ths site - to respectfully refer to them as 'Sir', with a capital letter, operating under the assumption that the person that I was addressing understood that it WAS meant respectfully.

It's no big deal, simply just another indication of how little we can ever understand each other - you on a forum in your own country, and me four thousand miles away in another country and culture.

tac

Jawgap · 18-03-2014 9:34pm

tac foley wrote: »

Thank you for the explanation, and for the corrections. I agree that it is unlikely in the extreme.

In any case, I sense that you are insulted, for some reason, by my use of the polite address 'Sir'. You don't use your real name, as I do, so I have no idea what your real name is, and we have never been introduced, nor are we ever likely to be. I was brought up to call anybody whose name was not known to me, but with whom I nevertheless had some kind of social interaction - such as that found on ths site - to respectfully refer to them as 'Sir', with a capital letter, operating under the assumption that the person that I was addressing understood that it WAS meant respectfully.

It's no big deal, simply just another indication of how little we can ever understand each other - you on a forum in your own country, and me four thousand miles away in another country and culture.

tac

Not insulted - and I've worked long enough in the UK and lectured / spoken at plenty of events (military history conferences / courses) to develop a decent understanding of Ireland, the UK and the dynamics of the relationship between them.

While respecting your previous service, I don't think you should confuse serving somewhere with being from there.

I'd also suggest perhaps observing the advice issued to American GIs arriving into NI to be stationed there....

There are two excellent rules of conduct for the American abroad. They are good rules anywhere but they are particularly important in Ireland:

(1) Don’t argue religion.

(2) Don’t argue politics.

tac foley · 18-03-2014 9:38pm

Fine by me.

'bye.

tac

jonniebgood1 · 18-03-2014 10:36pm

tac foley wrote: »

In any case, I sense that you are insulted, for some reason, by my use of the polite address 'Sir'. You don't use your real name, as I do, so I have no idea what your real name is, and we have never been introduced, nor are we ever likely to be. I was brought up to call anybody whose name was not known to me, but with whom I nevertheless had some kind of social interaction - such as that found on ths site - to respectfully refer to them as 'Sir', with a capital letter, operating under the assumption that the person that I was addressing understood that it WAS meant respectfully.

It's no big deal, simply just another indication of how little we can ever understand each other - you on a forum in your own country, and me four thousand miles away in another country and culture.

tac

Just use the username, that is peoples name on this site when you do not know their proper name.

In any case you only bring out your 'polite' use of sir when you are losing an argument with another user (excuse my observation).

rockatansky · 19-03-2014 1:17am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

many of those historically closely associated with him are RIRA thugs. Not that I expect an erudite, or even straightforward honest answer......

Ah back to the old linking Sands to the RIRA again. Why don't you just come out and say it was Sands who responsible for Omagh instead of trying to indirectly link him to it. Lets be honest here, that's what you're really trying to do. Either way you're still as wrong as you were before.

Can you name the 'many' who were close to him are RIRA thugs. We all know about his sister and her views on the provisional leadership. Can you please give details of these many other people who you are referring to?

pedroeibar1 · 19-03-2014 11:25am

rockatansky wrote: »

Ah back to the old linking Sands to the RIRA again. Why don't you just come out and say it was Sands who responsible for Omagh instead of trying to indirectly link him to it. Lets be honest here, that's what you're really trying to do. Either way you're still as wrong as you were before.

Can you name the 'many' who were close to him are RIRA thugs. We all know about his sister and her views on the provisional leadership. Can you please give details of these many other people who you are referring to?

Your comment illustrates the twisted ‘logic’ of some supposedly Republican individuals. Supposedly Republican because they have no idea of what Republicanism is about, nor yet democracy. It is inaccurate because at no time did I suggest that Sands was responsible for Omagh, he was dead almost two decades when that happened, an atrocity where twenty-nine people died and more than 200 were injured. All of them innocent.

If as you say ‘we all know about his sister and her views’ I have no doubt you fully understand what I implied about the RIRA thugs. Even today Sinn Fein will never condemn any past IRA action, murder, bombing, atrocity, disappearance, whatever because in their twisted logic it would be ‘dishonourable’ to the ‘sacred memories’ of their ‘martyrs’. The real reason is that they are too cowardly to say anything negative because of a fear of losing a few votes from a rabid, tiny minority.

We are more than 80 posts into this thread and not one Sands supporter has provided a valid suggestion to back up the views in the opening post. (In case you’ve forgotten it, it was the nonsensical ‘How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children.’ )

tac foley · 19-03-2014 1:49pm

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Just use the username, that is peoples name on this site when you do not know their proper name.

In any case you only bring out your 'polite' use of sir when you are losing an argument with another user (excuse my observation).

Not true, Sir, I endeavour to be polite all the time. I used to call my father 'Sir' as well. 'Sir' with a lower-case initial letter might possibly be construed as impolite in some circles, and I hope that you will have noticed that I always try to use a capital letter when writing it.

In any case, I wasn't aware that I was engaged in an argument of any kind, more one way communication where you told me the facts, and I, having previously misunderstood the status quo, revised my errant and shaky knowledge. You will notice, I hope, that I actually said 'thank you'?

tac, off for a nice BIG breakfast at Denny's.

BrendanHughes1 · 21-03-2014 1:36am

Fair play to the lad. What ever you thought of the IRA you have to admire his unconquerable convictions. He was fighting for something very dare to most irish peoples hearts at the time even if they didn't agree with the methods used by the IRA to get it.

The British government were totally wrong in trying to criminalize these men. They were fighting a war of national liberation not a sectarian war like the British right wing press tried to make it.

And the brave mans sacrifice with out a doubt made the peace process possible otherwise the war might still be going on like at the same intensity that it was from 81-94.

RIP soldier.

Fratton Fred · 21-03-2014 8:58am

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

Fair play to the lad. What ever you thought of the IRA you have to admire his unconquerable convictions. He was fighting for something very dare to most irish peoples hearts at the time even if they didn't agree with the methods used by the IRA to get it.

The British government were totally wrong in trying to criminalize these men. They were fighting a war of national liberation not a sectarian war like the British right wing press tried to make it.

And the brave mans sacrifice with out a doubt made the peace process possible otherwise the war might still be going on like at the same intensity that it was from 81-94.

RIP soldier.

Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry played a bigger part in the peace process. The ira bombed themselves in to an untenable position.

The difference being, thanks to the likes of Bobby Sands, they had no say in the matter.

Jawgap · 21-03-2014 9:21am

BrendanHughes1 wrote: »

Fair play to the lad. What ever you thought of the IRA you have to admire his unconquerable convictions. He was fighting for something very dare to most irish peoples hearts at the time even if they didn't agree with the methods used by the IRA to get it.

The British government were totally wrong in trying to criminalize these men. They were fighting a war of national liberation not a sectarian war like the British right wing press tried to make it.

And the brave mans sacrifice with out a doubt made the peace process possible otherwise the war might still be going on like at the same intensity that it was from 81-94.

RIP soldier.

Allow me to summarise if I may.....

You have offered zero evidence to support the OP's original statements with respect to Bobby Sands, specifically,

His election, though not as a Sinn Féin candidate, showed Sinn Féin the massive support that was latent out there that could potentially be tapped into........

Throughout the world Bobby Sands is held up as a figure of resistance and equality and is internationally respected.........

If we really are a 'mature nation' it's time we properly embraced our past and heroes like Bobby Sands and remembered them with the love and pride they deserve, not the disdain, embarrassment and confusion that many exude mainly due to a lack of knowledge......

Bobby Sands and others didn't cause the war, they merely fought back. Fighting back against an invading aggressive army is never wrong.....

How this country could do with Bobby Sands today, the time is coming that we will soon hear the laughter of our children......

......

Instead you opt to trot out the usual narrative that has been well trailed in other forums, perhaps in the hope it will deflect people's attention from the fact that the above statements have no foundation whatsoever in facts.

I wasn't going to 'bite' at the rest of your post, but what the hell, it's friday.....

......if the British government were wrong in criminalising 'these men' (I assume you are referring to PIRA 'volunteers' rather than just the hunger strikers) - what about the Irish government, and other governments in other jurisdictions who have seen fit to prosecute?

.....the republican view may well hold forth that the conflict was not driven by sectarianism - but the facts on the ground suggest otherwise in terms of the number and ferocity of attacks carried out that targeted people from the Protestant community going about their lawful business - in other words, just doing everyday things the rest of us take for granted.

.....they were not fighting a war of national liberation, they were fighting to establish a republic based on Marxist / Leninist principles - history has shown us that such republics are rarely liberating for anyone not a member of a narrow elite.

ChicagoJoe · 21-03-2014 2:26pm

tac foley wrote: »

..which of course is why the North of Ireland is not only still part of the United Kingdom, but is also safe in that status in perpetuity due to the government of the republic of Ireland having renounced all claims to unification.

tac

If the Anglo Irish Agreement was so good for the unionists then why were they so against it !!!! You haven't a clue buddy, not a clue

ChicagoJoe · 21-03-2014 2:38pm

Jawgap wrote: »

.....they were not fighting a war of national liberation, they were fighting to establish a republic based on Marxist / Leninist principles - history has shown us that such republics are rarely liberating for anyone not a member of a narrow elite.

SF/IRA must be the only political organisations that are called both fascists and communists down the years !!!

Appearently Thatcher secretly admired their courage " But privately, Lady Thatcher admitted to having a certain admiration for Bobby Sands and nine other prisoners who died on hunger strike, saying she had to “hand it” to them "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/10010531/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-admiration-for-IRA-hunger-strikers.html

ChicagoJoe · 21-03-2014 2:50pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry played a bigger part in the peace process. The ira bombed themselves in to an untenable position.

The difference being, thanks to the likes of Bobby Sands, they had no say in the matter.

Who the f**k were they

Fratton Fred · 21-03-2014 2:58pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Who the f**k were they

Are you sick, or just stupid?

Jawgap · 21-03-2014 3:11pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

SF/IRA must be the only political organisations that are called both fascists and communists down the years !!!

Appearently Thatcher secretly admired their courage " But privately, Lady Thatcher admitted to having a certain admiration for Bobby Sands and nine other prisoners who died on hunger strike, saying she had to “hand it” to them "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/10010531/Margaret-Thatchers-secret-admiration-for-IRA-hunger-strikers.html

To be honest, I don't think they knew or know themselves.

They were and are the great opportunists and the fact they were willing to hop into bed (metaphorically speaking, of course) with Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung and Hitler, probably says all we need to know about them.....

......because there's four people you really want your leaders cite when discussing their influences.......

jonniebgood1 · 21-03-2014 3:29pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Who the f**k were they

The smiley faces do not make this either a joke or funny.
Infraction.

Moderator.

jonniebgood1 · 21-03-2014 3:48pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry played a bigger part in the peace process. The ira bombed themselves in to an untenable position.

The difference being, thanks to the likes of Bobby Sands, they had no say in the matter.

Totally irrelevant and unproveable links/ comparisons between victims of both sides are not helpful.

tac foley · 21-03-2014 5:47pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Who the f**k were they

Image not shown - Broken hearted: Marie Comerford at the funeral of her son Jonathan, in 1993.

A mother died of a broken heart 16 years after her three-year-old boy was killed by an IRA bomb, a coroner said yesterday.

Marie Comerford suffered a fatal heart attack on the anniversary of her son Jonathan Ball's murder.

He died of horrific injuries after a bomb planted in a litter bin exploded in Warrington town centre in 1993.

His babysitter watched him die after the explosion which killed another 12-year- old boy and injured 54 others.

In the years after his death Mrs Comerford became extremely depressed and reclusive, an inquest heard.

Weeks before the 53-year-old was found dead at home in March, she stopped eating and refused medical treatment for her breathing difficulties.

Janet Napier, deputy coroner for Cheshire, told the inquest in Warrington:

'It [Jonathan's death] was an unbelievable tragedy and I do think her decline is linked to the incident. Really in a way she died of a broken heart. She had found happiness with a little lad being born then this terrible thing happened when he was taken from her and was never the same again after that.

'She gave up on everything with the tragedy in 1993. She died due to natural causes but of course we know what was breaking her heart.'

The IRA explosion on 20 March also fatally injured Tim Parry, 12, whose life support machine was turned off weeks later.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235068/Mother-boy-3-killed-IRA-bomb-died-broken-heart.html#ixzz2wcHjbnXE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

tac

pedroeibar1 · 21-03-2014 6:25pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry played a bigger part in the peace process. The ira bombed themselves in to an untenable position.

The difference being, thanks to the likes of Bobby Sands, they had no say in the matter.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Totally irrelevant and unproveable links/ comparisons between victims of both sides are not helpful.

I completely disagree with your comment which is grossly inaccurate in the context of FF's earlier post.

Twenty one years ago (almost to the day) a provable act of terrorism – the planting of 2 bombs in a busy shopping street killed two innocent small boys (Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry) and injured about 60 innocent people. That event led to the creation of a Foundation to support victims and veterans of conflict and terrorism and to help them move on with their lives. It also works to build communities without prejudice and discrimination.

Those murdered kids and maimed civilians were victims, they had no choice. Sands was not a victim – he had a choice, but he was encouraged by his political masters to play hardball with a tough opponent. He, as expected, lost. His political heirs continue to trot out the tripe that has been repeatedly rejected by the people of this island.

Why then in your view is it not helpful to ask what has the PIRA done since then to justify no comparison being made with their 'work' and the achievements of the Tim Parry & Jonathan Ball Foundation for Peace?

Jawgap · 21-03-2014 7:39pm

Aside from agreeing with @pedroeibar1, Tac and FF I'm not going to add anything.

I will observe, however, that I think certain posts are intended to be as provocative as possible to derail and drag the thread in a direction that moves it away from the original statements made by the OP.

I think at this point the OP should just admit that his assertions about Sands have no other basis than his opinion. While respecting his right to voice an opinion, I think he / she should just admit that an opinion, no matter how passionately, held is just that - an opinion.

The list of events held to commemorate what would have been his 60th birthday is instructive as to the lack of regard in which he was held.

And apparently "At the time of Nelson Mandela’s death, Russia Today, compared the ANC leader with Bobby Sands."

.....and last October a translation of Bobby Sands’ diary won the Italian Cultural Association LETTERATURE DAL FRONTE (Cassino) prize.

.....and last Sunday there was a 6v6 SOCCER (

) game in San Diego to commemorate his birthday.......

Santa Cruz · 21-03-2014 7:52pm

Don't forget all the participants in Operation Transformation who got such inspiration from his weight loss

rockatansky · 21-03-2014 10:07pm

tac foley wrote: »

Image not shown - Broken hearted: Marie Comerford at the funeral of her son Jonathan, in 1993.

A mother died of a broken heart 16 years after her three-year-old boy was killed by an IRA bomb, a coroner said yesterday.

Marie Comerford suffered a fatal heart attack on the anniversary of her son Jonathan Ball's murder.

He died of horrific injuries after a bomb planted in a litter bin exploded in Warrington town centre in 1993.

His babysitter watched him die after the explosion which killed another 12-year- old boy and injured 54 others.

In the years after his death Mrs Comerford became extremely depressed and reclusive, an inquest heard.

Weeks before the 53-year-old was found dead at home in March, she stopped eating and refused medical treatment for her breathing difficulties.

Janet Napier, deputy coroner for Cheshire, told the inquest in Warrington:

'It [Jonathan's death] was an unbelievable tragedy and I do think her decline is linked to the incident. Really in a way she died of a broken heart. She had found happiness with a little lad being born then this terrible thing happened when he was taken from her and was never the same again after that.

'She gave up on everything with the tragedy in 1993. She died due to natural causes but of course we know what was breaking her heart.'

The IRA explosion on 20 March also fatally injured Tim Parry, 12, whose life support machine was turned off weeks later.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235068/Mother-boy-3-killed-IRA-bomb-died-broken-heart.html#ixzz2wcHjbnXE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

tac

Pointless post, you could post hundreds of similar stories of grieving families from both the nationalist and Republican Community who's children were killed 20 years before that ever happened.

Edit- just seen the post previous.

On this day in 1981 Bobby Sands began his Hunger Strike

Comments