“Bobby Sands represents everything that a person should aspire to be.”
The words spoken by Sinn Fein Councillor Charlene O’Hara after a Bobby Sands memorial was damaged in Twinbrook, Belfast at the weekend.
A fair assumption? I suspect that many would disagree.
I also suspect that many nationalists would take issue with her reference to him being ‘one of the greatest Irishmen that ever lived’ too.
Whilst someone taking their own life is shocking and disturbing, the use and abuse by Sinn Fein of this man is incredible. Particularly after accusations from former Sinn Fein/Provisional IRA activist and prisioner Richard O’Rawe (see claims cited here and here) that the Hunger Strikes could have been ended earlier, but that the prisoners were overruled due to a by-election following Sand’s death.
O’Rawe’s claims were however denounced by leading republicans, including IRA commander, Brendan McFarlane, senior Sinn Fein strategist Jim Gibney and former Sinn Fein press officer Danny Morrison. (See here for more info)
Politically I have always wondered that if the hunger strikes didn’t happen, would Sinn Fein have grown so fast or at all?
The hunger strikes are an important point of history recall for the modern day republican movement.
Recently we have seen Colin Duffy and others who were in custody over the murders of the soldiers at Antrim stage a hunger strike. We may now see Duffy (off hunger strike now and on remand, in prison, charged with murder) stand for a Euro seat on June 4th.
PETER FYFE
So are you excusing the murder of children by the british army due to the existance of the PIRA?
I suggest that you retract the above insinuation forthwith. I have never, and will never, excuse the murder of anyone. Shame on you for employing dishonest misrepresentation.
If bloody sunday had not happened do you believe the PIRA would have enjoyed as much support?
Probably not. Why do you ask?
If the NICRA had not been presented with violence by Paisley and the B specials, would people have thought violence was the way forward?
Some would. The “physical force tradition” is, sadly, longstanding. But certainly you are correct to suggest that Paisley and his followers’ reaction to the civil rights protests was probably the single-most significant immediate cause of the Troubles. Shame on them.
Not one of these answers matter but go on and try to justify the murder of innocent children just because you don’t like thier religion and where they lived.
Why on earth would I do that? If you are again making insinuations about me, I demand that you retract them. RIGHT NOW.
The IRA did not kill them children we talk of, the british army did.
First, it is “those children”.
Second, I never said that the IRA killed them.
Third, I never denied that the Army killed them.
PLEASE STOP MISREPESENTING ME. Shame on you.
Willow, I just wanted to illustrate you have no problem excusing the murder of innocent people as long as they wear a british uniform when pulling the trigger.
RETRACT YOUR LIES IMMEDIATELY. I have NEVER excused any murder. RETRACT THE LIES NOW.
This debate on Bobby being compared to christ is interesting. I by no means think he is the Son of God and doubt anybody does but their are similarities in that they both died in the belief it was for others they loved. A man can show no greater love than to die for his friends.
To die for his friends, but to support the murder of those who are not his friends, and then to seek to portray the murderers as the victims and not the victims themselves. A disgusting, sickening belief system.
Hang your head in shame.
BRIAN MACAODH
Shame on you for glorifying a man who was happy to support the murder of fellow humans, and who perverted morality in a sick, self-regarding act designed to insult the victims of his murder gang.
He died a slow, excruciating death of his own choice. His organisation’s victims were given no such choice.
Shame on Sands. Shame on the PIRA. Shame on you.
Willowfield
Standard guff from unionists
Ambiguous whataboutery and obfuscation followed by faux moral outrage at being taken for your word
Are you channeling the undead paisley
Willow
Shame on me? I’m glad you think I care what you think.
Sands was stabbed, saw his family terrorized, and burned out of their home simply because of their religion. The state stood by and did nothing to lift a hand, in fact several uniformed members were there was his family was forced out and did nothing.
He thought the only way to fix the disaster that NI was was through revolution and an overthrow of the rotten, corrupt system. He truely believed this and became dedicated by his experiences.
He didn’t join the PIRA for status, for some romantic reason, for hatred of “prods”, or because he liked bloodshed and violence. He joined it because he thought it would lead to a better and more just state for the Irish people.
Look at his writings.
I don’t expect you to understand how it is possible to admire a man who was in the PIRA but not admire the organization, but don’t go around insulting people that can.
Brian MacAodh: He didn’t join the PIRA for status, for some romantic reason, for hatred of “prods”, or because he liked bloodshed and violence. He joined it because he thought it would lead to a better and more just state for the Irish people.
Actually, your second paragraph made a fairly good case for him joining up for revenge.
What previous actions of the IRA did he overlook when he decided to join, and what was the IRA doing while he was a member?
Bobby Sands committed acts of terror for the same reason as his mirror image Lenny Murphy. because he enjoyed it.
Both sick disgusting people. And now just both worm food. I doubt the worms tasted any difference. Good riddance to them.
Richard James: Catch yourself on chara. Ould Maggie was and still is hated across her own country!
Did she not destroy the health service, unions, Coalminers and of course single parents? While giving her rich friends everything they ever dreamed of!
Maggie didn’t smash the hunger-strikers – read history comrade! She destroyed democracy in her own country and will be forever remembered for that.
Meanwhile, Booby Sands has already went down in history as a Political Prisoner with honour!
AR
“Booby Sands”??
Right enough. Recent revelations by O’Rawe etc suggest that their own leadership played the lot of them for a bunch of boobies.
PAUL
I note your inability to even attempt to defend your vile views in support of murder.
My position is clear and unequivocal: opposition to murder no matter who the victim or who the perpetrator. So none of your insinuations. Don’t judge others by your own degenerate standards.
BRIAN MACAODH
Sands was stabbed, saw his family terrorized, and burned out of their home simply because of their religion.
Having suffered himself, he should have known better than to support the infliction of even worse suffering on others.
BRIAN MACADOH
The state stood by and did nothing to lift a hand, in fact several uniformed members were there was his family was forced out and did nothing.
Even if true, it doesn’t justify murdering other people.
He thought the only way to fix the disaster that NI was was through revolution and an overthrow of the rotten, corrupt system.
How wrong he was.
He truely believed this and became dedicated by his experiences.
The word is “truly”. All fanatics “truly believe” that they are right. Hitler believed he was right. Islamo-fascists believe they are right. Johnny Adair believed he was right.
He didn’t join the PIRA for status, for some romantic reason, for hatred of “prods”, or because he liked bloodshed and violence. He joined it because he thought it would lead to a better and more just state for the Irish people.
Murdering Irish people in order to achieve “a better and more just state for the Irish people” just isn’t right. He had no right to go out and inflict violence on other humans. No right whatsoever. He showed disdain for the will of the very people he purported to represent. He then chose to blackmail them emotionally in a disgusting act of vanity, self-pity and a gross insult to the victims of nationalist violence.
I don’t expect you to understand how it is possible to admire a man who was in the PIRA but not admire the organization, but don’t go around insulting people that can.
Sands deserves to be insulted and ridiculed. His gross self-regarding act of self-importance, which perverted morality by attempting to portray the perpetrators as victims can only reasonably be responded by way of insult and ridicule. Shame on him. Shame on you.
ARDOYNE REPUBLICAN
Meanwhile, Booby Sands has already went [sic] down in history as a Political Prisoner with honour!
It’s “gone down”. And he wasn’t a political prisoner: he was convicted of a crimimal offence, namely possession of firearms.
Willow…you make me laugh. As soon as I read my post I knew that you would point out that I typed truely instead of truly.
You’re right though…belief doesn’t have anything to do with justness of cause…that’s irrelevant to Sands anyway
Sands believed that guerrilla warfare combined with political activism would lead to the downfall of the NI state, and eventually to a state that would be better for everyone in Ireland, Protestant and Catholic. He felt the British presence in Ireland and the undemocratic, arbitrary partition of his country was ultimately responsibile for NI’s problems, social and tribal. He didn’t advocate tribal violence.
Was he right? Well, one will never know for sure as his cause failed, at least temporarily. You will say no, of course, and you are probably right. My personal views on the PIRA do not stop me from attempting to see him as a complex, human being. I, for one, don’t believe every single person involved with PIRA/SF was evil or incapable of being a good person. Do you?
More to the point, I don’t believe, after all I have read of him, that vanity or a quest for fame had anything to do with his decision. He was thinking of his comrades in the H-blocks (and to a lesser extent, the greater struggle). He sacrificed his life for them.
By the way, you throw the murder term out there quite a bit. Who did Sands murder??
And we are talking about Sands as an individual, not PIRA or other PIRA members who may have been little more than sectarian gansters.
“Sands believed that guerrilla warfare combined with political activism would lead to the downfall of the NI state, and eventually to a state that would be better for everyone in Ireland, Protestant and Catholic.”
And? I’m fairly certain if my political views were implemented then we would have a better country for everyone. The difference is I’m not conceited enough to believe I have the right to destroy the lives of others in order to do so.
“He felt the British presence in Ireland and the undemocratic, arbitrary partition of his country was ultimately responsibile for NI’s problems, social and tribal. He didn’t advocate tribal violence.”
The British presence had the support of the people in Ireland where it was and Sand’s agenda was roundly rejected in the part of Ireland where it wasn’t.
And if he didn’t advocate tribal violence then what was he doing in a sectarian death squad? Why was he on hunger strike because he didn’t believe his friend Bik McFarlane was a criminal?
“By the way, you throw the murder term out there quite a bit. Who did Sands murder??”
Right. He was just the IRA’s tea boy, wasn’t he?
This little spat took place, mostly, on the day that the coalition forces in Afganistan (that far away country) have admitted to killing (or is it murdering) circa 100 people (mostly women and children) in a bombing attack (no warning) it wasn’t the first time, unfortunately I don’t suppose it’ll be the last time. I wonder how many of those berating Bobby Sands for his actions here will be in favour of a homecoming parade for these forces.
FOLLOWERS: The Messiah! The Messiah! Show us the Messiah!
THATCHER: The who?
FOLLOWERS: The Messiah!
THATCHER: Huh, there’s no Messiah in here. There’s a mess, all right, but no Messiah. Now, go away!
FOLLOWERS: Show us the Messiah! The Messiah! The Messiah! Show us the Messiah!
THATCHER: Now, you listen here! He’s not the Messiah. He’s a very naughty boy! Now, go away!
BRIAN MACAODH
You’re right though…belief doesn’t have anything to do with justness of cause…that’s irrelevant to Sands anyway
So why did you try to justify his support for murder and violence by referring to his beliefs?
Sands believed that guerrilla warfare combined with political activism would lead to the downfall of the NI state, and eventually to a state that would be better for everyone in Ireland, Protestant and Catholic.
Well, he was wrong on at least three levels. First, and most importantly, in a moral sense, he was wrong because he supported murder and unjust violence. Second, he was wrong in a “realpolitik” sense because “guerrilla warfare” (code for terrorism) was never going to achieve a so-called “united Ireland”. Third, he was wrong because he had no right to elevate his own views as being somehow more important or more relevant than those of others, and to give himself a right to go out and destroy and kill against the wishes of the very people he purported to represent.
He felt the British presence in Ireland and the undemocratic, arbitrary partition of his country was ultimately responsibile for NI’s problems, social and tribal. He didn’t advocate tribal violence.
He was entitled to his views, as we all are. He wasn’t entitled to seek to force his views on others through violence.
He may have claimed not to have advocated tribal violence, yet he joined a tribal organisation, engaged in and provoked tribal violence. So he was a hypocrite.
I, for one, don’t believe every single person involved with PIRA/SF was evil or incapable of being a good person. Do you?
Every person is capable of being a good person. Unfortunately Sands elected to be bad person.
More to the point, I don’t believe, after all I have read of him, that vanity or a quest for fame had anything to do with his decision. He was thinking of his comrades in the H-blocks (and to a lesser extent, the greater struggle). He sacrificed his life for them.
It was vanity in the sense that he felt that he and his “comrades” were so important that they deserved to be treated in a privileged way.
It was vanity in the sense that he and his “comrades” believed that they were more important than other people, knew better than other people and therefore had been given a special right from a mythical “republic” that didn’t exist to go out and take others’ lives.
It was vanity in the sense that he felt his own self-inflicted plight of being in jail, having been convicted of a criminal offence, made him more of a “victim” than the real victims of the violence of the death squads to which he belonged.
By the way, you throw the murder term out there quite a bit. Who did Sands murder??
I don’t believe that Sands personally murdered anyone. But he supported murder and joined an organisation whose raison d’etre was to murder.
And we are talking about Sands as an individual, not PIRA or other PIRA members who may have been little more than sectarian gansters.
Sands as an individual elected to join a murderous organisation, and by his hunger strike he sought to legitimise murderers and other criminals.
Shame on him. Shame on you for not condemning him.
You know something Willowfield, you’ve almost talked me round. You’ve talked me round to the idea that Nationalists, discriminated against in jobs, housing and government should have just rolled over and taken the treatment meted out by the British/Unionists. You’re also right that although Unionists continued their discriminatory practices they were in fact about to change their ways and start treating everyone equitably here in Northern Ireland, without the effect that the threat of violence/civil war had on the British (the actual British, the ones that view the rabid, foaming at the mouth Northern Unionist as a strange, alien being).
It took violence to force the Unionists to begin ending their discriminatory practices. The violence that was perpetrated against Unionists was done in the name of freedom, the perpetrators were soldiers, and they were POWs, not criminals. If they were criminals they wouldn’t have been set free from jail when the ceasefire was called. They were released due to their POW status, which Sands died to achieve.
You can hate us all you want, you can wilfully misunderstand us all you want, it should bother no Nationalist that a Unionist can’t understand why we would give iconic status to a man who laid down his life to help in the process of bringing an end to the discrimination and mistreatment of Catholics (who got murdered on Bloody Sunday and in Ballymurphy because of the IRA, nothing to do with the soldiers of the British state murdering unarmed civilians, plenty of kids in there too Willow if you can get that plank out of your eye). Hell Holy Cross, one of the worst examples of sickening behaviour I’ve ever seen, anywhere, that was down to Nationalists blatently walking to school, past Loyalist houses. Kind of like the OO insist on being allowed to do in Nationalist areas annually, due to it being the ‘Queen’s Highway’ (the Queen’s highway belongs exlclusively to Loyalists didn’t ya know).
All you have is the standard Unionist bullshit line about how no Unionist or Brit is in any way responsible, because the damn bog wogs just wouldn’t lie down and take the shit life that Unionism had lined up for them. Well fuck ye, we took it ourselves, our freedom fighters are now in government, and are legitimised by their impressive mandate, given them by us Nationalists. I understand that sickens you, I’m over the moon about that.
Shame on you for not condemning him.
By the way can you at least attempt to get your head round the fact that you are not a moral barometer? Shame on you for not supporting them. You see two can play at that game, see what I did? I applied my moral view to what you should think, and told you to be ashamed. That was fucking stupid and smug of me wasn’t it?
“The violence that was perpetrated against Unionists was done in the name of freedom, the perpetrators were soldiers, and they were POWs, not criminals..”
Whatever about the rest Neil where you may have some reasonably valid points to make – but this line is complete bollox and without putting to fine point on it you can put that sort of garbage where the sun don’t shine…..or at least keep it in your local where you might find some of the faithful in 2009 still willing to believe that militant Republicans were never the sectarian murderers they demonstrated themselves to be on so many occasions….(Bik McFarlane – a good friend of Sands and fellow hunger striker is an apt singular example)
On the Bobby Sands issue it does appear that despite some earlier comments we may be about to see the unveiling of a new church saint – perhaps you heard it here first……
NEIL
You know something Willowfield, you’ve almost talked me round. You’ve talked me round to the idea that Nationalists, discriminated against in jobs, housing and government should have just rolled over and taken the treatment meted out by the British/Unionists.
Strange comment. Why on earth should they have done that? You seem to be under the dangerous and bizarre impression that the only choices were “rolling over” and engaging in a murder and terror campaign.
It took violence to force the Unionists to begin ending their discriminatory practices.
The discriminatory practices were being ended before the PIRA campaign began – in response to the peaceful civil rights movement.
The violence that was perpetrated against Unionists was done in the name of freedom, the perpetrators were soldiers, and they were POWs, not criminals.
Wrong on so many levels.
First, it doesn’t matter what “name” violence was perpetrated in: it was wrong. There was no justification for murdering or maiming anyone.
Second, the perpetrators were “soldiers” only in their own minds. In reality, they were criminals.
Third, they weren’t “PoWs”: they were convicted of crimes and sentenced accordingly.
Fourth, they were criminals: if you commit a crime, by definition, you are a criminal.
You appear to be living in a fantasy world.
If they were criminals they wouldn’t have been set free from jail when the ceasefire was called. They were released due to their POW status, which Sands died to achieve.
It doesn’t follow that because they were released early that they must therefore not have been criminals. You can’t turn the clock back: they committed crimes and therefore were criminals. They were released conditionally and on licence from prison with criminal records still in tact. They didn’t have “PoW status” – for reasons of expediency, they were given special privileges in jail – it made it easier for the prison regime to manage them that way.
You can hate us all you want, you can wilfully misunderstand us all you want, it should bother no Nationalist that a Unionist can’t understand why we would give iconic status to a man who laid down his life to help in the process of bringing an end to the discrimination and mistreatment of Catholics
I hate no-one. Ironically, it sounds from what you say that that you are hate-filled. You must be hate-filled if you support the murder of your fellow humans.
And I can understand why you give “iconic status” to Sands. It is because it makes you feel better about your pro-violence views. It makes you feel that it must have been OK to go out and murder because those who did the murdering on your behalf were “brave” and “dedicated”, and therefore surely they must have been right.
As for the process of bringing and end to “discrimination and mistreatment of Catholics”, that was actually begun by peaceful protestors and met with considerable success. The death squads whom you support fired up sectarian hatred, which helped to perpetuate and encourage sectarianism – one of the causes of discrimination – they were therefore counter-productive. In any case, murdering someone in order to “help in a process of ending discrimination” is not justifiable. Would Travellers in west Belfast be justified in murdering people because of discrimination against them? Would gays be justified in murdering people because of discrimination against them? What about women? Would a Protestant schoolteacher be justified in murdering someone because she didn’t get a job in a Roman Catholic school?
(who got murdered on Bloody Sunday and in Ballymurphy because of the IRA, nothing to do with the soldiers of the British state murdering unarmed civilians, plenty of kids in there too Willow if you can get that plank out of your eye).
The fact that people were killed in Bloody Sunday, or that people were killed, or even murdered by the Army, doesn’t justify murdering other people.
Hell Holy Cross, one of the worst examples of sickening behaviour I’ve ever seen, anywhere, that was down to Nationalists blatently walking to school, past Loyalist houses.
I don’t see how a future event like Holy Cross could have justified Sands or other PIRA death-squad-members violent activities 20 years previously. Was “loyalist” violence in the 1970s justified because of intimidation of Protestants in Rasharkin in 2009?
Kind of like the OO insist on being allowed to do in Nationalist areas annually, due to it being the ‘Queen’s Highway’ (the Queen’s highway belongs exlclusively to Loyalists didn’t ya know).
Opposition to the Orange Order doesn’t justify murdering people.
NEIL
All you have is the standard Unionist bullshit line about how no Unionist or Brit is in any way responsible
Given that I stated precisely the opposite, perhaps you might wish to revise your prejudiced, bigoted views? Or do you prefer to live with your prejudices, even if that means misrepresenting those whom you perceive to be of “the other”?
Well fuck ye, we took it ourselves, our freedom fighters are now in government, and are legitimised by their impressive mandate, given them by us Nationalists. I understand that sickens you, I’m over the moon about that.
Shame on you for supporting the murder of your fellow humans. I pity you that you are so filled with hate.
Neil
You are letting willows faux loyalist moral outrage get under your skin.
Willow
Maybe you can explain how violence by your freinds and family at Berntolet, Bloody Sunday, Drumcree, Whiterock and Holy Cross
Perhaps you should learn to write in sentences, but, unlike you, I oppose all unjust violence, no matter whom the perpetrators or whom the victims. That includes all of the above.
I have no problem condemning such incidents, which is in contrast to your support for nationalist terrorism and murder.
It says something rather disturbing about your own prejudices that you assume that someone who opposes nationalist violence must therefore support loyalist or other violence. You haven’t quite managed to work out an ability to look at things objectively, have you? You appear stuck in a tribal mindset where violence meted out by your ethnic tribe is acceptable to you, while you find violence meted out by the other tribe to be unacceptable.
Willowfield
So do republicans they just view much of the IRA’s (not all) as just violence
No willow I see that you are a supporter of the state and therefor a chearleader of state and state sponsored violence hence you have as many drops of blood on your hands as any other non-participating supporter ….. unless you actually participated in the state or state sponsored violence! Did you willow? Are you a terrorist? Are you now or were you ever a member of the oo, ruc, b specials, uvf, lvf, uda et al?
As for the spelling and grammar nazi act give it up it doesn’t work on me. I am sure it gives you a warm feeling in your secret spot to know your language skills are better than mine just like it gives me a warm feeling in my secret spot to know my logic skills outstrip yours by a mile
PAUL
So do republicans they just view much of the IRA’s (not all) as just violence
Well, they are wrong, for it wasn’t just under any reasonable criteria. Murder is wrong. Terrorism is wrong.
No willow I see that you are a supporter of the state and therefor a chearleader of state and state sponsored violence hence you have as many drops of blood on your hands as any other non-participating supporter
Is it your feelings of guilt that lead you deliberately to misrepresent the views of others? Or the realisation of your inadequacy in terms of being able to justify your own vile views?
I do not “cheerlead” for any violence in Northern Ireland, state-sponsored or otherwise. My default position is to oppose violence, and I have consistently opposed its illegitimate use throughout the Troubles, whether that violence emanates from the terrorist death squads or the security forces.
You may try to ascribe to others your own sectarian prejudices and hatred, but not everyone shares your mindset. Most people, in fact, opposed terrorism. Only those, like you, who supported it – who supported the slaughter of their fellow citizens – have blood on their hands. You, and others like you, should hang your head in shame.
Neil: “It took violence to force the Unionists to begin ending their discriminatory practices. The violence that was perpetrated against Unionists was done in the name of freedom, the perpetrators were soldiers, and they were POWs, not criminals.”
Actually, there are rules as to who is and isn’t a POW and, wishful thinking aside, I’m fairly certain that PIRA didn’t pass all four of the tests applied to armed irregulars.
“I oppose all unjust violence”
Could you elaborate on your concept of ‘just violence’ Willow. Do you view just violence as that being sanctioned by the state or do you see it in a wider context?
“To know your language skills are better than mine”
Not always Paul:
“The fact that people were killed in,[sic], Bloody Sunday”
Willow also makes grammatical errors.
Willow
By your own logic any suport for the security forces or their proxy killers means support fo all their actions you can not pick and choose in your own words.
Therefor you are a terror suporter and every bit as guilty as me
Damn that whole logic thing sucks
By the way willow are you a marcher?
Willowfield
If not excusing the actions of the soldiers, why qualify the instances in which you seem to find it understandable? Such as the existance of PIRA death squads. You would rather say these are accidental and instead the blame can be placed on the PIRA for existing. If not defending their killing, you were trying to make excuses for those who carried out the killing.
The point of my questions were to illustrate to yourself how foolish playing the blame game is. You seem to enjoy it by reminding everybody about the deplorable actions of the IRA. Some people on here will know I am not a supporter of violence however I did get over annoyed at your qualification on why the murder of children was not only the shooters fault. You suggest it is the PIRA’s fault because the soldier would not have been there had the PIRA not existed. That kind of logic is what justified the PIRA’s campaign to many. The thought that, if stormont and unionists could not act like the christians they claim to be then what is wrong with trying to bring down the state if we can always blame the brits for being here. The PIRA would not have existed in a fair state where state security forces had not helped burn people out of their homes. The PIRA would not have existed if the RUC had done their job and protected nationalists rather than stand back. These points however are mute as they do not justify the murder of children and i shall make no qualifications for the killing of children.
I will retract that you excused murder but you you did try to qualify the instances in which it can happen due to the existance of the PIRA. Not excusing murder just trying to make it more understandable to the British perspective, is that it?
So you are disgusted Bobby sands supported violence in the late seventies? He still died for his friends and that is what I was illustrating. I am not an IRA supporter and was not justifying violence just drawing the similarities. Somebody did ask. I suppose you are whiter than white and turn off the TV anytime an armed forces recruitment ad comes on. Or do you support violence as long as its in a uniform?
“It was vanity in the sense that he felt that he and his “comrades” were so important that they deserved to be treated in a privileged way. ”
Treated in a privileged way? He was not a pedophile, rapist, murderor or petty criminal out for personal gain. He grew up in a society where those in power opposed all peaceful attempts at reform. In fact, peaceful attempts at reform were met with state violence. FACT. If it wasn’t for that, would Sands and Hughes and others have took up arms against the state? NO. So it was of the utmost importance to force the state to admit it’s role in the creation of this sick, twisted society by making it recognize that these men were not common criminals, by recognizing that they shouldn’t be lumped in with common criminals.
Guess what? The state recognized their claim. They must have been right, in that regard at least.
“Treated in a privileged way? He was not a pedophile, rapist, murderor or petty criminal out for personal gain.”
Sands active role in a sectarian death squad makes him worse than a petty criminal. The legacy of his death was a series of brutal sectarian murders by the bigoted mobs who followed him. He died as he lived, a cog in the sectarian murder machine.
Brian: “Treated in a privileged way? He was not a pedophile, rapist, murderor or petty criminal out for personal gain. He grew up in a society where those in power opposed all peaceful attempts at reform.”
Arguably, given the use of violence to change behavior, he would accurately characterized as a racketeer…
Brian: “Guess what? The state recognized their claim. They must have been right, in that regard at least. ”
Parties in a lawsuit frequently settle, not because they agree with the assertion of the opposing party, but to make a headache go away. Sands, et al, made themselves enough of a headache that the state was willing to make fairly minor concessions to make the headache go away.
That said, Sands was not a POW, per the Geneva Conventions — there are specific requirements for that status and the IRA does not meet all four. Thinking on it, he never claimed POW status, iirc — the PIRA personnel claimed they were “political prisoners.”
PAUL McMAHON
Could you elaborate on your concept of ‘just violence’ Willow.
I refer you to centuries of the western philosophical tradition and just war theory, starting with Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and culminating in the legal frameworks of the 20th century.
Do you view just violence as that being sanctioned by the state or do you see it in a wider context?
Wider.
PAUL
By your own logic any suport for the security forces or their proxy killers means support fo all their actions you can not pick and choose in your own words.
You can desperately attempt to twist logic to suit your prejudices, but in reality nothing that I have said could lead to the perverse conclusion that you have drawn.
Therefor you are a terror suporter and every bit as guilty as me
I’m not a terror supporter. Indeed, I have made my position clear and unequivocal: terrorism is wrong. You, on the other hand, support it. Shame on you.
PETER FYFE
If not excusing the actions of the soldiers, why qualify the instances in which you seem to find it understandable?
I’m unaware of what you are referring to. I simply noted that many of the deaths referred to were accidental, and pointed out that they occurred as a result of nationalist terror actions. Thus demonstrating the disingenuous logic of trying to justify PIRA terrorism by referring to children killed accidentally during exchange of fire between PIRA terrorists and the Army. Were the PIRA terrorists not “engaging” the Army, no-one would have been killed.
If any actions of the soldiers were unlawful or wrong, then I would never seek to excuse them.
Such as the existance of PIRA death squads. You would rather say these are accidental and instead the blame can be placed on the PIRA for existing.
It’s not a case of “rather” doing anything. I simply speak the truth. You can’t argue in favour of the PIRA on the basis of children killed as a consequence of PIRA actions. That is perverse.
Equivocation is your specialty!
There are many examples of children being intentionally targeted not the least of which is Bloody Sunday
Therefor you are a terrorist supporter
But answer my question are you a marcher or just a loyal supporter
I’m not familiar with the intricacies of the just war theory Willow and, unfortunately your one sentence / word answers don’t really add to my limited knowledge on the subject.
Could you expand a little more?
Neil: They were released due to their POW status, which Sands died to achieve.
Did Sands also die to achieve POW status for the loyalists? They were also released.
Neil: It took violence to force the Unionists to begin ending their discriminatory practices.
How much violence did the civil rights movement use to get the key legislative changes passed by Stormont in 1968?
PETER FYFE
The point of my questions were to illustrate to yourself how foolish playing the blame game is.
There’s nothing foolish about condemning murder and those who support it. On the contrary, it should be a universal reaction.
You seem to enjoy it by reminding everybody about the deplorable actions of the IRA.
If someone starts a thread glorifying a PIRA terrorist, then what can they expect other than right-thinking people to condemn him?
Some people on here will know I am not a supporter of violence however I did get over annoyed at your qualification on why the murder of children was not only the shooters [sic]fault.
I never said that. Please do not misrepresent me.
You suggest it is the PIRA’s fault because the soldier would not have been there had the PIRA not existed.
I was referring to children who were accidentally shot. Not to children who were murdered.
These points however are mute as they do not justify the murder of children and i shall make no qualifications for the killing of children.
The word is “moot”.
I should hope your attitude to murder is not confined to the murder of children. The murder of adults is also wrong.
I will retract that you excused murder but you you did try to qualify the instances in which it can happen due to the existance of the PIRA.
I didn’t.
Not excusing murder just trying to make it more understandable to the British perspective, is that it?
No. Stop misreprenting other contributers.
So you are disgusted Bobby sands supported violence in the late seventies? He still died for his friends and that is what I was illustrating.
He “died for his friends” who were murderers and criminals. He sought to portray himself (a perpetrator) as a victim. His self-regarding actions were perverse and sick. He must be condemned and ridiculed.
I suppose you are whiter than white and turn off the TV anytime an armed forces recruitment ad comes on. Or do you support violence as long as its in a uniform?
If you are trying to draw an equivalence between lawful and legitimate armed forces and illegal death squads then, in doing so, you seek to legitimise terrorism and murder. You should reflect on the logic of your position.
The only people who really cared about bobby were Bik and bernie.Gerry and Marty have sold out and all those lost lives now count for nothing is the view held by many including members of the sands family and veteran republicans.I do know gerry and marty have cut themselves off and distance themselves from ex-ira colleagues they had in the 70′s and 80′s as if they are too good for that company now.Both of them can never escape their past and one day certain truths will come out about the hunger strike and various other decisions they were involved in that will humiliate them deeply..
Too bad faux outrage and nitpicking werent a valuable commodity, someone would be rich
“Thus demonstrating the disingenuous logic of trying to justify PIRA terrorism by referring to children killed accidentally during exchange of fire between PIRA terrorists and the Army. Were the PIRA terrorists not “engaging” the Army, no-one would have been killed.”
You only believe what you want to believe. Have you read all the material, books, evidence compiled about Bloody Sunday? the PIRA were not engaging anyone. There was one shot fired by nationalist paramilitary groups, and that was after the massacre had started. It happened to be a Stickie who fired a handgun but was soon tackled by those who realized it could only bring further murder.
You lose credibility when you justify, and don’t dance around it-that is what you did and continue to do, the deaths of 14 unarmed citizens on Bloody Sunday. There was no PIRA engagement with the British Army that day. The Paras, sufficiently hyped up and directed by their superiors, were out for blood and they got it. It is and will always be a black mark on the British Army. (One of many, of course, but unique in modern times in taht it took place in Western Europe in front of western journalists)
BRIAN MACADOH
Treated in a privileged way?
Yes.
He was not a pedophile, rapist, murderor or petty criminal out for personal gain.
Some of his comrades were murderers, and whether he was out for personal gain or not is irrelevant. He was still a criminal and sought to be treated in a privileged way.
He grew up in a society where those in power opposed all peaceful attempts at reform. In fact, peaceful attempts at reform were met with state violence. FACT.
That doesn’t excused murdering people, I’m afraid, nor supporting murder or terrorism.
If it wasn’t for that, would Sands and Hughes and others have took up arms against the state?
It’s “have taken”.
Whether or not Sands would have become terrorists in other circumstances doesn’t matter. The fact is that they elected to join terrorist death squads and to engage in terrorism. That was wrong and should be condemned.
So it was of the utmost importance to force the state to admit it’s role in the creation of this sick, twisted society by making it recognize that these men were not common criminals, by recognizing that they shouldn’t be lumped in with common criminals.
The possessive of “its” doesn’t take an apostrophe.
The men were common criminals, for they committed common crimes of which they were convicted. If you commit a crime, then you are a criminal. One’s motivation for committing a crime doesn’t matter – it is the fact that you commit it that matters.
Guess what? The state recognized their claim. They must have been right, in that regard at least.
It didn’t. They remained incarcerated as criminals. The state relaxed the regime (wrongly, in my view), purely for reasons of expediency.
PAUL McMAHON
I’m not familiar with the intricacies of the just war theory Willow and, unfortunately your one sentence / word answers don’t really add to my limited knowledge on the subject. Could you expand a little more?
You don’t need to be familiar with the intricacies. It’s pretty basis really. Is it beyond your wit to search the internet for a summary? Try WIkipedia.
BRIAN MACAODH
You only believe what you want to believe.
No I believe many things that I’d rather not. You’re wrong.
Have you read all the material, books, evidence compiled about Bloody Sunday?
No, I haven’t. Have you? Why do you ask?
the PIRA were not engaging anyone.
The PIRA regularly “engaged” the Army in gun battles, especially during the early years of the Troubles. The result was several deaths, including those of children.
There was one shot fired by nationalist paramilitary groups, and that was after the massacre had started. It happened to be a Stickie who fired a handgun but was soon tackled by those who realized it could only bring further murder.
And? Who has claimed otherwise?
You lose credibility when you justify, and don’t dance around it-that is what you did and continue to do, the deaths of 14 unarmed citizens on Bloody Sunday.
I didn’t justify any such deaths. Retract your disgusting accusation immediately. On the contrary, I have unequivocally condemned all unjust killings.
There was no PIRA engagement with the British Army that day.
Nobody said that there was.
The Paras, sufficiently hyped up and directed by their superiors, were out for blood and they got it. It is and will always be a black mark on the British Army. (One of many, of course, but unique in modern times in taht it took place in Western Europe in front of western journalists)
And who is saying otherwise?
Stop misrepresenting people. If you have to indulge in misrepresentation to make your point, maybe that indicates that your point isn’t worth making.
PETER FYFE
The other point in relation to Army killings of children is that it doesn’t justify the murder of other adults and children by PIRA or anyone else.
Are Republicans, yet again, basing their support for terrorists around certain actions by the security forces which may have resulted in death?
What a funny and twisted world we live in, where intentionally going out and murder is considered similar than killing someone unintentionally.
Its sad to see some people scraping the barrel, but I suppose it takes these type of people to drum home the idea that its a dispicable act to intentionally set out to take life.
Willow
So the killing of the 14 unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday was murder, and those killed did nothing to deserve being shot down by dogs??
UMH
“What a funny and twisted world we live in, where intentionally going out and murder is considered similar than killing someone unintentionally.”
So the 14 shot down on Bloody Sunday were not killed intentionally? It was an accident?
“[i]It is and will always be a black mark on the British Army. (One of many, of course, but unique in modern times in taht it took place in Western Europe in front of western journalists) “[/i]
Brian MacAodh, are you serious?
No developed country will place a black mark on the British Army for the action they took on that day. Some romanticists will drum up victim hood for a while, but developed and especially developing countries will take interest in how to tackle crowd control, especially when there are petrol bombs, stones and other missiles attacking security. Not to mention gunfire.
Countries/states will not always be gullible to the ‘Irish Struggle’, they will move on and learn how to protect themselves against the types of people the ‘Irish struggle’ created.
Bobby Sands bombed a furniture store. What a brave action, not a crime of course, and “everyone” should aspire to such an achievement.
As for those who claim the Provos violent actions, including mass murder, were not even crimes – let’s look at the action of Sands’ “OC” in the Maze, Bik McFarlane. He was serving a life sentence for murder. He bombed a bar to committ mass murder of innocent people simply because of their religion, and not content with this, actually machine-gunned a bus stop near the bar too (killing a 17 year old girl among other in the latter ‘action’).
The indiscriminate sectarian mass murder of Protestant civilians wasn’t even a crime according to Sands and his fellow “H block campaigners”, never mind murder. What’s the opinion of posters on this thread, I wonder?
“[i]So the 14 shot down on Bloody Sunday were not killed intentionally? It was an accident?”[/i]
Brian, I do not want to get into the details of the bloody Sunday trial but it is in now way certain that all 14 people shot were innocent.
I’ve been brought up the old fashioned way, “stay away from trouble” my mum used to say. “If you get in trouble the black Moria will get you”. “don’t talk back to a policeman”
You know what? I’ve headed he advice.
BRIAN MACAODH
So the killing of the 14 unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday was murder, and those killed did nothing to deserve being shot down by dogs??
I’m afraid I don’t know whether or not it was murder. It’s possible, although I think it unlikely. We’ll see what Saville says. I can’t imagine that the killings were lawful, though.
I’m unaware of anything that those killed might have done that would have justified them being shot, but I hope Saville will educate us all as to what actually happened.
As I have said consistently, I oppose all unjust violence. It’s sad that you saw fit to misrepresent me.
Why do you keep going on about Bloody Sunday, anyway? No-one’s trying to justify it on here.