“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.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    We have hit the 100th post, a firm reminder that Bobby sands won’t reach that age.

    Never worry, he’s the Messiah!

    Praise him.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    am I the only one who thinks Bobby Storey will replace Bobby Sands in the icon status? Bobby organised the breakout, it’s an idea which will last better than sitting in a cell stinking with your own shit.

  • ed

    Its funny to watch the fake outrage and whataboutery employed by the loyalists on this board. Just goes to show how succesful Bobby Sands was at showing up the evil inherant in unionism and how hard they want to deny their own support for evil.

    Just murder willow? Hah the blood lays thick on your head and the head of your ancestors, evil murderers to a man

  • willowfield

    More misrepresentation, which just indicates the bankruptcy of morality among pro-terror nationalists.

    No “loyalist” has expressed any support for murder. Certainly not me. On the contrary, my opposition to it is unequivocal and consistent.

    The only posters demonstrating support for murder are those glorifying Rabbie Sands.

  • Gabriel

    The british had to resort to using the ‘group 13’ unit with their shoot to kill policies of catholics whether they were innocent or terrorists.

  • willowfield

    You can’t justify terrorism prospectively, by referring to an alleged unlawful reaction to it. If the terrorism didn’t take place there would have been no need for any reaction to it, lawful or unlawful.

    Capital punishment is wrong, but that does not excuse those murderers who have been executed.

  • Paul

    Willow
    The IRA was an unlawful action in response to state and state sponsored terrorism

  • willowfield

    No it wasn’t.

  • Paul

    Yes it was

    It was born from Bloody Sunday

  • willowfield

    The PIRA was formed more than two years before Bloody Sunday.

    Enough of your nonsense. You’ve made your point: you support nationalist terrorism. That is all we need to know.

  • Paul

    and you support unionist terrorist show me your moral superiority?

    PS My nonsense is simply the mirror image of your nonsense

  • willowfield

    Stop lying. I don’t support unionist terrorism, or any other kind, and I have stated so unequivocally.

    What is the point in telling lies? Do you feel so guilty about your own support for nationalist terrorism, that it makes you feel better to lie about others and say that they also support terrorism?

    If you aren’t going to engage honestly, then fuck off.

  • Paul McMahon

    “If the terrorism didn’t take place there would have been no need for any reaction to it, lawful or unlawful”

    Ahh, the hoary, [and untrue], old chestnut that state and loyalist violence was only a reaction to IRA violence.

    It was all those bloody Republicans fault.

    Utter rubbish

  • Paul McMahon

    “No “loyalist” has expressed any support for murder”

    Utter pish.

    Both loyalism and mainstream Unionism have both given tacit support to violence and been selectively ambivalent towards it.

  • Paul

    If you support the union you support terrorism its really that simple! Sucks to have your hypocracy pointed out to you

    I feel no guilt at all willow I accept my own hypocracy. Its you that lost the plot not I

  • Paul

    If you support the union you support terrorism its really that simple! Sucks to have your hypocracy pointed out to you

    I feel no guilt at all willow I accept my own hypocracy. Its you that lost the plot not I

  • willowfield

    PAUL McMAHON

    Ahh, the hoary, [and untrue], old chestnut that state and loyalist violence was only a reaction to IRA violence. … Utter rubbish

    So you’re saying that, were there no terrorist campaigns ongoing, that the police would nonetheless have instigated a shoot-to-kill policy? Who would they have been shooting, and why?

    That, I’m afraid, is utter rubbish.

    Wise up.

    Utter pish. Both loyalism and mainstream Unionism have both given tacit support to violence and been selectively ambivalent towards it.

    Oh FFS, stop being deliberately obtuse. The refernce was to “loyalist” contributors on this thread.

    PAUL

    The word is “hypocrisy”.

    I am not a hypocrite: my position is clear and consistent.

    I will no longer respond to you as it appears that you are merely an attention-seeker, content to post lies about people in order to provoke them.

    You have nothing to contribute here. Goodbye.

  • Paul

    nit pick nit pick nit pick so I don’t use the spell check like you do…. doesn’t change the fact that you are a terrorist suporter!

    Back to an earlier question you deliberately avoid answering, do you march?

  • Paul

    And I checked Hypocracy while widely used is an acceptable spelling in the real world

  • Paul McMahon

    “So you’re saying that, were there no terrorist campaigns ongoing, that the police would nonetheless have instigated a shoot-to-kill policy?”

    No I’m not saying that at all however it was a good attempt at puttimg words in my mouth.

    You said:

    “If the terrorism didn’t take place there would have been no need for any reaction to it, lawful or unlawful”

    What was the rejuvination of the UVF and the sectarian murder of Peter Ward reactive to?

    “Oh FFS, stop being deliberately obtuse. The refernce was to “loyalist” contributors on this thread”

    I wasn’t being obtuse, deliberate or otherwise, you should have qualified your statement by adding that you were referring to contributors on this thread. But just for the sake of discussion I’ll rephrase the comment:

    “Mainstream Unionism has given both tacit support to violence and been selectively ambivalent towards it”

    Satisfied?

  • willowfield

    PAUL McMAHON

    You said: “If the terrorism didn’t take place there would have been no need for any reaction to it, lawful or unlawful” What was the rejuvination of the UVF and the sectarian murder of Peter Ward reactive to?

    You’re going to have to start reading people’s comments in the context in which they were made, and stop jumping to erroneous conclusions.

    My comments were made in relation to a claim that the PIRA campaign was justified because of alleged police shoot-to-kill policies in the 1980s: an obviously ridiculous claim, given that the PIRA campaign began many years previously, and that the alleged policy was a reaction to that campaign.

    I see no connection whatsoever between my statement and your reference to the 1966 UVF and murder of Peter Ward. You seem to have lost the plot completely.

    I wasn’t being obtuse, deliberate or otherwise, you should have qualified your statement by adding that you were referring to contributors on this thread.

    I didn’t need to as I was responding directly to someone who referred to “loyalist” contributors on this thread.

    “Mainstream Unionism has given both tacit support to violence and been selectively ambivalent towards it”

    Whether or not that is true, it doesn’t justify murdering people.

  • Paul

    Paul

    Just accept that to willow

    Unioinism murder good
    Nationalist murder bad

  • Paul

    When the Unionist’s came for the Occonors,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a Occonor.

    Then they burnt out the Sands,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social Sands.

    Then they came for the McGuiness’s,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a McGuiness.

    Then they came for the Adams,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not an Adams.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out for me.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    ….so when all the Sands, McGuiness’s and Adam’s were gone,
    Mammy, Daddy and Babby Unionist lived happily ever after!

  • Brian MacAodh

    Willow

    I brought up Bloody Sunday to see if you would even grant that the British Army murdered, or at least was at fault, for the death of those poor people. From an earlier post of yours talking about “14 unarmed children” I assumed you were referring to Bloody Sunday. Maybe you weren’t, it was unclear when I looked back.

    If someone won’t even begrudge me the fact that Bloody Sunday was an act of state terrorism if not murder, then there is no point even talking to them. That is why I asked.

  • Paul

    Brian It was I that originally brought up the 14 unarmed children and yes it was a referance to Bloody Sunday but willow quickly avoided the issue as I suspected he would.

    UMH you should find where that text was borrowed from and look how stupid your comment is

  • Ulsters my homeland

    Paul you should stop writing silly little poems to label Unionists as Nazi’s.

    Come out with it striaght like Father Reid and Mary McAleese?…show some balls, Mary showed hers!

  • Brian MacAodh

    UMH

    I bet you have a poster of Bobby Sands next to your poster of the Proclamation of the Republic in your bedroom, but you have to take them down when you friends come over

  • Ulsters my homeland

    Shhhhhhhh Brian or else they might find the shrine built to honour our most holy Saint Darerca.

    [it’s in my wardrobe]

  • Paul

    UMH you called them nazi’s not me. I merely used it as an illustration of why the nationalists/Catholics couldn’t just lay back and take it like willow seems to think they should have.

  • nobby

    It is a worthy aspiration for many nationalists and republicans to follow Bobby Sands’ inspirational lead…

  • Ulsters my homeland

    “[i]UMH you called them nazi’s not me. I merely used it as an illustration of why the nationalists/Catholics couldn’t just lay back and take it like willow seems to think they should have.”[/i]

    Why did you go all historical by suggesting I find out where the text was borrowed from?

    Maybe, there’s another version floating around, a Republicans plagiarized version I should look at?

  • willowfield

    BRIAN MACAODH

    I brought up Bloody Sunday to see if you would even grant that the British Army murdered, or at least was at fault, for the death of those poor people.

    Well, I acknowledged that they were at fault.

    From an earlier post of yours talking about “14 unarmed children” I assumed you were referring to Bloody Sunday. Maybe you weren’t, it was unclear when I looked back.

    No. I assumed the reference to “14 unarmed children” was about children killed by the Army during crossfire incidents. Those killed at Bloody Sunday weren’t all children, were they?
    If someone won’t even begrudge me the fact that

    Bloody Sunday was an act of state terrorism if not murder, then there is no point even talking to them. That is why I asked.

    Talking to whom?

  • willowfield

    Just checked and 7 of the Bloody Sunday victims were teenagers, so one couldn’t reasonably expect to association the description of “14 unarmed children” with said event.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    How did 14 unarmed children get killed when dozens of others were throwing petrol bombs, stones and firing shots at the security?

    Did the Paras deliberately avoid the troublemakers and shoot the innocent bystanders?

    Republicanism revisionism is a funny oul world, imagine if we lived in it for real. [shock horrer]

  • Uladh

    I urge a moderator to address UMH’s outrageously offensive remark at 10. I hope nobody bites the bait.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    Uladhh

    Maybe my outrageous remark could be captured by the Irish screen writers, who so perfectly capture Northern society as a fight against a British oppressor?…

  • Uladh

    Must… not… bite.. the bait.

    Again, is a moderator going to do something about this person’s remarks? I refer specifically to the following:

    [i]How did 14 unarmed children get killed when dozens of others were throwing petrol bombs, stones and firing shots at the security?

    Did the Paras deliberately avoid the troublemakers and shoot the innocent bystanders?[/i]

  • Paul McMahon

    “You’re going to have to start reading people’s comments in the context in which they were made, and stop jumping to erroneous conclusions”

    Erroneous conclusions?

    Sorry. But I thought that we were speaking about loyalist reactionary violence in terms of your:

    “Loyalist” contributors on this thread”

    Do you speak for them?

    See Willow, we blog on a cyberspace area where context is subjective

    “If the terrorism didn’t take place there would have been no need for any reaction to it, lawful or unlawful”

    See my above.

    I’d be interested to know if your notion of lawful and unlawful violence is subjective or objective and in which context you view it. You obviously support violence of some manner.

    “Mainstream Unionism has given both tacit support to violence and been selectively ambivalent towards it. Whether or not that is true, it doesn’t justify murdering people”

    No, it doesn’t, however, it still doesn’t hide the fact that it’s exceptionally hypocritical for mainstream Unionism to give their tacit support to such murder while their electorate supported them.

    [BTW, excuse the mistakes in grammar. punctuation and spelling, I’m being “deliberately obtuse” ‘cos I can almost be as pedantic as you].

  • Doctor Who

    Every redundant ideology needs it´s martyrs, and while Bobby Sands died a horrible death, he ultimately died needlessly.

    Months after his death most of the so called five demands where met, having been offered while the hunger strikes where on-going.

    Today we know that the republican leadership needed the martyrs to maximise their twisted propaganda, recruiting impressionable young people caught up in the romatic idea of armed struggle.

    I find it quite disturbing that anyone would wish to use the wasted life of an IRA thug, as a role model.

  • willowfield

    PAUL McMAHON

    Erroneous conclusions?

    Yes.

    Sorry. But I thought that we were speaking about loyalist reactionary violence in terms of your: “Loyalist” contributors on this thread”

    Perhaps you ought to read the thread more carefully. I was responding to someone who claimed that “loyalist” contributors (by which I took to mean unionist) supported terrorism. No unionist contributor here has stated any support for terrorism. On the contrary – unlike many nationalist contributors who support terrorism – I have unequivocally expressed my opposition to all terrorism.

    Do you speak for them?

    Do I speak for whom?

    I’d be interested to know if your notion of lawful and unlawful violence is subjective or objective and in which context you view it. You obviously support violence of some manner.

    Obviously it is objective. My default position is to oppose violence. Obviously, there are very few, exceptional circumstances where it is legitimate, e.g. self-defence.

    No, it doesn’t, however, it still doesn’t hide the fact that it’s exceptionally hypocritical for mainstream Unionism to give their tacit support to such murder while their electorate supported them.

    Maybe it is, but that is completely irrelevant to this thread. We are not discussing “mainstream unionism”, and “mainstream unionism’s” hypocrisy doesn’t justify nationalist terrorism.

    What is your purpose in trying to deflect the thread away from its subject?

  • willowfield

    This thread has been quite revealing in exposing the very disturbing mindset of pro-terror nationalists. So ingrained is their support for murder and violence that their kneejerk reaction when it is condemned is to assume that those condemning nationalist violence must support loyalist violence.

  • This thread has been quite revealing in exposing the very disturbing mindset of pro STATE terror unionists. So ingrained is their support for state murder and violence that their kneejerk reaction when it is condemned is to assume that those condemning nationalist violence must support republican violence.

    You see mister willowfield sauce for the goose sauce for the gander. Your mock outrage doesn’t wash one bit and throw in the casual bigotry of ulster’s my homeland and you have loyalism /unionism in its pure form. Are scotstown, virginia, st johnston etc part of your Heimat?

  • Al Hominem

    Ad hom anyone?

  • anon

    Don’t worry Willow they simply can’t conceive that your difference of opinion with them might be based on objective reasonaing and a condemnation of all forms of terrorism. To them, you MUST be a hate-filled pro-violence loyalist, because you disagree with them.

    Oh, and according to them it’s “mock outrage” you express because they can’t fathom that you might actually mean what you say – after all, it doesn’t fit their ingrained stereotypical image that they have of you. They insist on trying to dress you up as a supporter of state violence because they are incapable of understanding your opposition to them based on rationality.

  • Doctor Who

    Ireland North and South has punched well above it´s weight in the Arts, Sport, and Literature. There have been countless role models where young people can look to for inspiration. It is typical of Sinn Fein / IRA to pick out one who contributed absolutely nothing to Ireland except the fact that he and his “comrades” ensured that Irish unity will never become a reality.

  • willowfield

    You see mister willowfield sauce for the goose sauce for the gander. Your mock outrage doesn’t wash one bit …

    There’s one rather obvious weak point in your reasoning: I don’t support “state murder”.

    Actually two: my outrage is not “mock”.

    ANON

    Well said.