Gerry Adams to meet Hunger Strikers Families; Inquiry Sought

This week in South Derry, bowing to pressure from recent revelations that have reduced aspects of the standard Provisional narrative of the 1981 hunger strike to self-serving propaganda, Gerry Adams and members of the 1981 PIRA sub-committee for the Hunger Strike will meet privately with members of hunger strikers’ families. This comes as a former hunger striker and other Blanketmen, and the families of hunger strikers Patsy O’Hara and Mickey Devine, have made public calls for a full inquiry into the events of July, 1981. It has been established an offer, approved by Thatcher, which met 4 of the 5 demands, was conveyed through the Mountain Climber link via Brendan Duddy, to Martin McGuinness in Derry, who in turn brought it to Gerry Adams, Jim Gibney, Tom Hartley and Danny Morrison in Belfast. Danny Morrison gave details of the offer to prison OC Bik McFarlane, who then discussed it with PRO for the Hunger Strikers, Richard O’Rawe. They both agreed there was enough there in the offer to end the hunger strike; Bik McFarlane said he would send word out of the acceptance. This conversation was overhead by a number of nearby prisoners who have come forward corroborating it. Brendan Duddy has confirmed that the response he got from the Adams committee was rejection: “More was needed.” Six hunger strikers subsequently died. The British had the prison authorities implement the substance of the July offer three days after the hunger strike finally ended in October, 1981.

The question remains, why did the Adams committee over-rule the prisoners’ acceptance of the offer? The answer to this will need to be supported and not undermined by known facts and evidence. This has been the demonstrable problem with the narrative constructed by Danny Morrison, and the shifting denials that have come since the publication of Richard O’Rawe’s book, Blanketmen in 2005. The denials and half-baked explanations have been continually eroded and fatally undermined by facts and evidence. Brian Rowan’s recent interview with Bik McFarlane is a masterstudy in this. It was ridiculous. The problem for those who support denying the truth is that more evidence continues to emerge as more time goes by, and they cannot know what will come next. So the lie of yesterday gets changed by the evidence which arrives tomorrow; this is something that only by telling the truth today they can prepare for. If they continue to lie, they continue to expose themselves further. This self-serving cover-up only protects those who have something to hide. The courage and integrity of the protesting prisoners, the hunger strikers and their sacrifice is not under question, nor will be sullied by the betrayal of the Adams committee.

UPDATE: Statement from the families of hunger strikers Patsy O’Hara and Mickey Devine included below the fold.The families of hunger strikers Patsy O’Hara and Mickey Devine have issued a statement calling for a public inquiry:

“We, the O Hara and Devine families, would also wish to put on public record our full support for an independent Republican Inquiry, which was first called for by ex-Hunger Striker Gerard Hodgins, into the controversial claims surrounding the events of the 1981 Hunger Strike.

At a recent meeting in the Gasyard, Derry City, which we attended, compelling and disturbing evidence revealing that an offer made by the British which conceded four of the five demands, was accepted by the prison IRA leadership and rejected by elements of the outside IRA leadership.

These claims which have been supported by former blanket men and ex-hunger strikers have led us to conclude that only an independent Republican Inquiry, free from party political affiliations, can heal the wounds of our families that this controversy has re-opened. We are only interested in the facts, the evidence and the truth and we would hope that all republicans would support us in our call and bring and end to this controversy so that we, the families, have peace of mind as to what really happened during this period.”

Tony O Hara, on behalf of the O Hara family
Mickey Og Devine, on behalf of the Devine family

Former Hunger Striker and Blanketman Gerard Hodgins and Blanketman Thomas “Dixie” Elliott have made public calls for a full inquiry into the questions hanging over the 1981 hunger strike.

Gerard Hodgins:

Recent revelations have pointed to the need for clarity, full disclosure and honesty on the part of all who were involved in those secret negotiations/discussions. I would appeal for all these people, for the sake of our memories and in the service of truth, to agree to co-operate with an inquiry into all aspects associated with this traumatic time in our history which has been thrown into such question with the reports and evidence that a deal could have been secured before Joe McDonnell died.

A genie has been let out of the bottle and thrown the perceived narrative of the horrors of 1981 into question. One thing is certain of those days and which no question mark hangs over: the Blanket Men fought courageously and the hunger strikers died martyrs and their commitment and sacrifice can never be sullied, questioned or diminished in any way.

The final piece of the jigsaw which has remained hidden from view to this day is the actions and reasons for those actions on behalf of the leadership who guided us. It is time for answers and explanations to be offered.

I am not a member or supporter of any political party, grouping or organisation. I am a supporter of peace and politics and don’t advocate any sort of return to the days of war: I am not on a Sinn Fein bashing exercise and have tried to be measured with my words. I am an ex-Blanket Man who was there and would welcome some insight into the secrets of 28 years ago.

Thomas “Dixie” Elliott:

The whole argument has now gone from the Prison Leadership accepting what was on offer on July 5th to its rejection from outside and just why was it rejected. The families are entitled to these answers as are the friends and comrades of the men who died. What we don’t need is the usual attempt to smear those who ask these questions […] Those asking these questions are former Blanket Men with no agenda only the truth. I myself am not a member of any group nor party and I am now firmly opposed to the use of Armed Struggle as I saw too many give their lives for what was effectively on the table in 1973. We need closure in this and I feel that both sides need to come together in a debate open to all so that answers can be obtained.

The IRSP, along with the families of two hunger strikers, the O’Haras and the Devines, have also called for an inquiry:

The IRSP wish to put on public record our support for an open independent republican inquiry into the truth behind the 1981 hunger strike as called for by the O Hara and Devine families and also by former IRA hunger striker Gerard Hodgkins.

Given the contradictory statements emanating from various spokespeople from Sinn Fein on this matter and the refusal of these people to partake in the recent discussion held in the Gasyard center in Derry we are firmly of the opinion that such an inquiry is the only course of action open to the republican community. We have come to this conclusion because of the weight of evidence from wide ranging sources who were directly involved which clearly contradicts the Sinn Fein version of events and which furthermore suggests that the lives of the last six hungerstrikers may have been saved.

The forthcoming Sinn Fein closed meeting with the families of the ten hunger strikers is purely another attempt to mislead and confuse events surrounding the 1981 hunger strike.

Adams’ meeting with the families is to take place at Gulladuff in south Derry on Wednesday.

Clearly, a private meeting in the back of beyond will not suffice. The 1981 hunger strike left a massive imprint on the public consciousness, and has been an emotive issue used by Sinn Fein ever since. Bobby Sands’ face famously graces the side of the political party’s Belfast headquarters; it could be said that the images, symbolism and emotion of the hunger strike have been incorporated – literally – into the Sinn Fein brand. The public have the right to the truth – told publicly.

Cartoon, “More Questions than Answers”, courtesy of John Kennedy

Earlier on Slugger:

“This is a huge opportunity and I feel there’s a potential here to end this” Bik McFarlane miraculously recovers his memory and completely backtracks on every denial he had made previously, while also making up new, contradictory details never before mentioned

“I will not be attending and will not send a representative” Gerry Adams refuses to attend public meeting about the hunger strikes; extremely revealing discussion in the comments section

1981 Hunger Strike Truth Commission Includes text of British document of July offer and transcript of Willie Gallagher’s speech at the Derry meeting

The Truth is a Heartbreaking Thing Initial summary of Derry meeting

Upcoming Debate: “What is the Truth Behind the Hunger Strike?” Announcement of public meeting and note of Radio Foyle debate between Raymond McCartney and Richard O’Rawe (also discussed on The Pensive Quill: A Shifting Narrative)

When in a hole… Contrasts between Danny Morrison’s position and previously published accounts of the time

What were the hunger strikers told? Questions emerge that cast doubt on what the hunger strikers knew when about what negotiations were being conducted on their behalf by the Adams subcommittee.

“Let’s have the whole truth” – Danny Morrison and Richard O’Rawe statements

Did Thatcher Kill All 10 or Only 4? – contains statements and interview excerpts

Links and background:

1986 excerpt from interview with John Blelloch, Mi5, by Padraig O’Malley (Bobby Sands Trust website)
“The Blelloch Interview”, Anthony McIntyre

Sunday 5 April 09:
‘Adams Complicit Over Hunger Strikers?’
NIO Documents on Sunday Times website
“The Thatcher Intervention”, Anthony McIntyre
IRSP Statement in response to NIO documents

Monday, 6 April 09:
Irish News: Hunger Strike deal ‘must be disclosed’
Irish Times: SF denies claims on hunger strike deaths
Radio Foyle, The Morning Programme (link lasts a week): Willie Gallagher, IRSP and Danny Morrison, begins @ 8 mins
Response from Kevin McQuillan to comments made by Danny Morrison in the Radio Foyle interview; scroll down a bit.

Tuesday, 7 April 09:
Irish News: Morrison rubbishes renewed claims of Hunger Strike deal
Bobby Sands Trust: Documents Still Withheld

Previously on Slugger:
O’Rawe’s account confirmed: Hunger Strikers Allowed To Die (28 March 08)
Eamon McCann verifies Richard O’Rawe’s account of the 1981 hunger strike in which he alleges that six of the hunger strikers need not have died as the prisoners had agreed to accept an offer from the Mountainclimber, only to be over-ruled by Gerry Adams.

Hunger Strike Controversy Has Not Gone Away, You Know (17 April 08)
Many background links

O’Rawe and the Derry Journal (18 April 08)
Crucial question still unanswered

Blanketmen, by Richard O’Rawe
Danny Morrison
Jim Gibney
O’Rawe response to Gibney
Brendan McFarlane
Brendan Hughes
Interview with Richard O’Rawe

Further reading:

Irish News: Allegations of a rejected deal spark fury among republicans (1 March 2005)
Irish News: Was my father’s death PR exercise? (1 March 2005)
Irish News: Monsignor Faul regrets his ‘late intervention’ (1 March 2005)
Irish News: Hunger strikers’ lives not sacrificed — family (2 March 2005)
Daily Ireland: Hunger Strikers Story Brought to Book, Danny Morrison (2 March 2005)
Irish News: Hunger strikers’ deaths must be fully explained, says author (3 March 2005)
The Guardian: Hunger strike claims rile H-block veterans (4 March 2005)
Daily Ireland: McFarlane denies Hunger Strike deal was struck (4 March 2005)
Irish Times: Hunger strikers wanted more than vague promises, Danny Morrison (5 March 2005)
The Village: H-Block Hypocrisy (12 March 2005)
The Village: For the cause or caucus, Hugh Logue (ICJP) reviews O’Rawe’s Blanketmen (19 March 2005)

  • Ray

    The very serious hunger strike questions combined with what McGuinness/Adams/Sinn Fein have done in their bureaucratic campaign to destroy the Irish language raises the most troubling of questions as to whether the organisation is just a total fraud woking in the sole interests and self-glorification of its leadership and against truth and justice for the community.

  • Paul

    It has been established an offer, approved by Thatcher, which met 4 of the 5 demands, was conveyed through the Mountain Climber link via Brendan Duddy, to Martin McGuinness in Derry, who in turn brought it to Gerry Adams, Jim Gibney, Tom Hartley and Danny Morrison in Belfast. Danny Morrison gave details of the offer to prison OC Bik McFarlane, who then discussed it with PRO for the Hunger Strikers, Richard O’Rawe. They both agreed there was enough there in the offer to end the hunger strike; Bik McFarlane said he would send word out of the acceptance.

    When was this established? Its a different story then Bik has been telling at the very least

  • Dave

    Ray, it is a “total fraud” but not for the “sole interests and self-glorification of its leadership.” Those in the intelligence community who protect that leadership and turn a blind eye to the location of the hundreds of millions that it has raised from organised crime are protecting them because they get something immensely valuable from the arrangement, i.e. a forged set of ownership papers to so-called Irish republicanism. That allows them to attempt to redefine Irish republicanism as support for British sovereignty over Ireland. To that end, the Shinners have promoted (a) the formal renunciation by Ireland of its claim to sovereignty over the north of Ireland, (b) the formal renunciation by that community of their former right to national self-determination as members of the Irish nation, and (c) the formal extension of British sovereignty into the south of Ireland under the guise of the North/South Ministerial Council. Essentially, the strategy of the intelligence community is to kill the idea of Irish republicanism rather than to continue the futile task of killing those who promote that idea. That is in addition to allowing small groups of organised murder gangs to control the violence under the direction of the intelligence communities, thereby diverting opposition to British rule down a dead end street and away from the most successful means of opposing a colonial power (civil disobedience). The Shinners are useful tools of their masters and in return enjoy the protection of their masters.

    Sadly, the Hunger Strikers were also just useful brand-building tools for their masters.

  • John O’Connell

    Gerry Adams is the beast of Revelation. Republicans may think that this is irrelevant but the hungerstrikers are defined in his title in the Book of Revelation as the beast with seven heads and ten horns. The seven heads symbolise the seven heads of the army council. The ten horns symbolise the ten hunger strikers who died to give glory to his organisation.

    These two elements in his power over the SDLP and in Ireland in general have sustained him for these last almost thirty years of political involvement.

    The seven heads were undermnined by John Hume leaving him only the ten horns as his power over others.

    At the end of this process of deconstructing the myth of the hunger strikers’ supernatural powers and their sacrifice for Gerry Adams in particular, you should not be surprised to see a decline in the Sinn Fein vote North of the border and, if it were possible to go any lower, a decline in the vote in the Republic. Even US dollars will stop flowing if you are successful.

    In other words, you’re looking at the end of Adams and a fullsome defeat of the Antichrist as a supernatural force. Sinn Fein’s words will sound hollow then.

    But how can that be when many of you are former IRA men, etc? I can only answer by suggesting that your sense of justice supersedes your desire to inflict pain and suffering. You are not in it for “me” but for all of us. Good luck.


    I honestly did not want to believe Richard o’Rawe’s version of events but there is now undeniable evidential sufficiency to vindicate him. For me, as a former lifelong SF voter it has produced an apalling vista.
    I have no doubt that at the Gasyard meeting in derry Willie Gallagher & Gerard Hodgkins were genuine truth seekers.
    I sincerely hope that the SF leadership comes clean & does not prolong the distress this is causing to the families of na Stailceori.

  • Slugger O’Toole Admin

    Play the ball, not the man. All libellous comments and those referring to them have been and will continue to be removed. “Stabane Watch” is on their way to a red card no matter how many nicknames they use. You have been warned.

  • deadmanonleave

    Liam Clarke is a journalist for a British newspaper which supported Thatcher at the time, and Willie Gallagher is in the IRSP which has links with the INLA.

    I might be missing something, but neither have denied any of the above, they have simply asked for the truth about what happened at the time – Gallagher is on record as saying the IRSP didn’t believe O’Rawe’s claims initially.

    The only people who are hiding anything are those who are running from open discussion, and using character assasination to demonise anybody who wants to get to the truth about what really did occur. Slugger’s tradition of ball not man has been beneficial for those of us that also want to know the truth.

    Thankfully, the more that PSF’s leadership and supporters of their position protest, and change their stories, the more that they are exposed for what they are. Ten men died, Thatcher was the ultimate villain of the piece, but that does not absolve anyone else of being accountable for their actions and decisions at the time.

    If they have nothing to hide, they would happily debate openly, if not at the Gasyard, then somewhere else with cameras and open to all. They owe that much at least to the families and friends of the Hunger Strikers.


    Firstly, I cant see how asking for an “independent republican enquiry” into the very serious questions that have arisen about the 1981 hungerstrike does NOT constitute ‘truthseeking.’ As far as i can see Mr Gallagher is asking for exactly the same thing as the families of na stailceori are asking for.
    Secondly, I dont know Willie personally nor am I aware of his antecendents but anything he has written about this issue seems fair & balanced enough to me. Anonymous allegations that Mr Gallagher is a “Mister Big” behind some crimewave with Strabane as it’s ‘epicentre’ are news to me but even if they were true, it doesnt tarnish the wishes of the Hungerstrikers families! Also, its only fair to say that “anonymous” allegations & slurs against individuals who disagree with the SF leadership on this matter are’nt going to deflect people from asking for the truth. (Perhaps the next allegation against truthseekers involved will be that Eamonn mcCann is a secret enforcer for the Triads in the north-west???)
    Surely no-one should fear a balanced independent republican enquiry except those who are telling lies ?

  • deadmanonleave

    Hysterics? Good heavens, you’ve led a sheltered life if you think that’s an hysterical response.

    If you can’t debate the issues, and it seems clear that you have an agenda to try and throw mud at one of the key people who’ve driven this campaign, then you won’t last long on here.

    I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic, or are a little confused, but no, deadmanonleave wasn’t my given name at birth.

  • anotherblanketman

    The knives are coming out again but will make no difference to the truth. Perhaps “Strabane watch” and “anonymous coward” should go to the O Hara and Devine families and castigate them too for choosing their representative as these posters know better than them. Strange how they haven’t contributed anything to this debate and are strangers to this site. Enough said!

  • Dixie

    I have copied and pasted the above remarks as they are slanderous and I will be passing them on to Willie and I believe that he will be legally entitled to obtain the IP addresses from the forum of those who are carrying on this vilification.

    Dixie Elliott

  • Dave

    By the way, what is the point of appealing for an “independent Republican Inquiry” (whatever that is supposed to be)? If you make it a condition that Gerry and his clique (McGuinness, Hartley, Gibney, etc) should support it before it is formed, then you give them the right of veto over it and they will use that veto to, oddly enough, veto its formation by simply ignoring your request. Besides, do you really think that you will persuade pathological liars to change their coordinated narratives and expose themselves for what they are?

    You should just form a committee and go about the business of establishing what you can establish without the testimony of a bunch of pathological liars who will simply urinate on the graves of the dead by lying to you about their role in their deaths.

  • deadmanonleave

    You really are making yourself seem foolish.

    The whole discussion is about the hunger strikes, if you can’t contribute anything, then find something constructive to do.

    The truth is slowly coming out, all the insults in the world against those involved won’t put this genie back in the bottle.

  • Ray

    During the hunger strike Provisonal SF repeated stated that the all decisions relating to the hunger strike were made by the men inside Long Kesh. Provisonal SF on the outside had nothing to do with any decisions. Obviously, that was a lie.
    When there is one lie you have to start looking for more lies, and you usually find them.
    Maybe we need to go back to 1973 when the current SF leadership took over and find out what really happened back then. A number of those who were deposed are still alive today and should step forth.
    If I understand correctly, and perhaps I am mistaken, the GFA was a version of what was offered in 1973 and which Adams and McGuinness were totally opposed to at the time, but then accepted in 1998. Adams and McGuinness ousted the then Provisional leadership in 1973 to gain power and control for themselves.
    If I understand correctly, effectively the same thing happened with the hunger strike. They intervened to turn down an accepted compromise, but were forced to accept it after another 6 men died, or rather the families pulled their loved ones of hunger strike, and they had no other choice, but the overriding issue for the leadership was their own power and control.
    A pattern appears to be starting to emerge.
    Is the key factor in this equation the question of who is in ultimate control with the power of life and death, and nothing else is sacred, not even the lives of your own comrades or those members of other groups?
    Under Brehon Law death by hunger strike is considered murder. There are six deaths here that cannot be blamed solely on Margaret Thatcher.

  • circles

    Ray – I really didn’t want to comment on this thread at all as I’m nt a beliver and its a bit of a believer only thing, but if you want to spout conspiratorial nonsense try at least and get some of the facts right.
    The current leadership of SF (if you mean Gerry Adams) has been in place since 1983 (2 years after the hunger strikes and ten years after you claim) not 1973. So to respond to your “if i understand correctly…” – no you haven’t. Get you’re conspiracy theory back to the drawing boardand check your facts before going off on one.

  • Dave

    Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were on the PIRA leadership delegation that met the British government in 1972 and were running the show long before Gerry disposed of Ruairí Ó Brádaigh in 1983. Gerry was VP of the PSF from 1978. In this case, it was Gerry and Martin who were running the show with the British government talking to Martin via the Mountain Climber and PIRA’s Army Council (as they later admitted) not being informed by Gerry’s clique about what was going on. That shows you who was actually in control of the Shinners long before you think.

  • brian mc cann

    dennis the menace n scap n another unknowen so far were controlling the hungerstrike on the outside workin for maggie n gerry adams let him come forword now and tell the truth as the dark says he cant hes a professinal liar

  • Tarlach MacDhónaill

    Identifying a living individual in the public eye, attacking that individual due to his public status, in an attempt to divert curious minds from a highly emotive and important issue regarding the agonising deaths of the Hunger strike martyrs is sickening, it neither helps Adams nor hinders the building momentum around the issues.

    We all have backgrounds and depending on whom is analysing them, they can be presented as good or bad, what this has to do with the possibility 5-6 young men could have escaped death in 1981is beyond me.

    If these allegations are proven, which it looks like they will, then all the resentment and hate as was dished out to O’Rawe, Scullion and many others wont save anyone.

  • really

    OK so John O’Connell’s comments in which he (rightly or wrongly) repeatedly refers to Gerry Adams as the Antichrist are allowed to stay up on this forum, and therefore mustn’t be considered at all libelous, while anyone who questions the democratic credentials of William Gallagher is immediately deleted Lenin/Trotsky style?

    Talk about double standards.

  • Slugger O’Toole Admin

    In fact one of John’s pieces is still is up, the other was removed. Accusing someone of being the AntiChrist is hardly libellous, but it is certainly not abiding by the ball playing rule of the site.

    John, keep it up and you will be out permanently.

    But there are some people on this thread who were warned directly about their man playing stuff and who nevertheless persisted. In fact nearly 50% of the thread has now been cut.

    I understand this is an emotive subject. But if you cannot play the ball, just keep your council…

  • sb

    [i]Accusing someone of being the AntiChrist is hardly libellous[/i]


  • Tarlach MacDhonaill

    This most be very uncomfortable for ardent Sinn Féin supporters, but surely they would rather the truth to come out, than for it to be hidden in order to save face?

  • Danny O’Connor

    If the families had not started to intervene,how many more men would have died?,(or been let die).
    Nothing surprises me any more about this dirty little war,thousands dead,sacrificed to perpetuate the self interest of the intelligence services.

  • KieranJ

    Hard to understand the warning from the Slugger Administration when th subject posts were already removed. Just remove the post and hold the comment please. No self gratification.

    Now then, the hunger strikes would never have occurred had the occupying British authorities and their scut leader, Maggie Thatcher, treated the Irishmen as political prisoners. Case closed.

  • carey glen

    Lets state the facts aswe know them and scrutinise them for their legitimacy. If we don’t this just turns into a SF bashing exercise, too late it already has.

  • deadmanonleave

    KeiranJ – you think that because Thatcher was in charge of the Brits, you think we shouldn’t look at the decisions taken by those in charge of the Republican movement – I don’t think that’s washing with many people.

    Carey Glen – If PSF had been as keen to get to the truth, rather than engage in obfuscation, demonisation and revisionism then they might not look like they have something to hide.

    All of the anonymous little digs at those who seek the truth, kneejerk posts, and all of the attempts to minimise the roles played by individuals and their decisions are cutting no ice.


    No-one can accuse me of SF bashing ! For many years I unquestioningly accepted the SF version of the Hungerstrikes.The “Ten Men Dead” account , with the author’s access to comms was for very many republicans the definitive story of what went on behind the scenes in 1981 with ‘Mountain Climber’ et al. When Richard O’Rawe’s book came out , I along with many many others were outraged by his challenge to what i saw as an established truth.I am sure i was not alone in thinking Mr O’Rawe was involved in some nefarious agenda & the SF spin machine went into overdrive against him. Many people,myself included just didnt want to believe that we had been lied to over the events of 1981. Now, it would appear O’Rawe’s accaount has been vindicated & as a previous poster stated lies have led to further lies from the SF leadership & it makes me seriously think “what else???”

    From what I have read here so far ,there have been many attempts to demonise those who have been seeking an independent enquiry on this serious matter. Since yesterday the not so subtle slurs against Mr Gallagher have been removed.These attempts to discredit truthseekers of what happened during the hungerstrike were very obviously crass attempts to deflect us all from the real issue in hand.

    The families of some of the hungerstrike martyrs in their statement from yesterday (13/06/09) are quite clearly calling for an enquiry. I sincerely hope that the ‘slur & rumour’ factory doesnt start churning out nonsense about these people as they have certainly suffered enough!

  • John O’Connell

    Slugger O’Toole Admin

    In fact one of John’s pieces is still is up, the other was removed. Accusing someone of being the AntiChrist is hardly libellous, but it is certainly not abiding by the ball playing rule of the site.

    John, keep it up and you will be out permanently.

    Yes, you removed a harmless post and retained the more significant one.

    The hunger strike is very relevant to the leadership of Gerry Adams and helps to define him as the Antichrist in the sense that he had men who were prepared to die for him and his organisation. That gave him supernatural power and a great advantage over the SDLP in the competition for votes.

    But now we find that not only was the hunger strike an illusion of power and only four seemingly died legitimately for the cause, we also find that even those four were probably under orders from Gerry Adams & Co. Let’s face it, if Gerry Adams had the final word over negotiating with the British after four deaths, he must have had the final word over Bobby Sands, for example, going on hunger strike. So Gerry Adams was in control.

    Some people have a funny definition of the Antichrist. They think he is coming to end the world through nuclear war or something, But I know that it is much more local than that. The precedent he sets of setting aside Christianitry would have ended the world but only in the long term. But he is a local figure like Christ, and he is powerful for a short time (he is not eternal).

    Deconstructing the myth about the hunger strikers is part of the ending of that power and the beinning anew of a party led by Gerry Adams as a normal political party, whose vote will begin to decline on this news.

    That’s why they’re fighting so hard.


    I dont want to go off topic too much but i think describing Gerry Adams as the “anti-christ” is a tad strong & perhaps stretching the imagination just a little teeny weeny bit ??? 🙂

    Gerry’s Luciferian tendencies notwithstanding, he does have some ‘revelations’ he should share with the wider republican community & most importantly with the families of na stailceori.

  • John O’Connell

    i think describing Gerry Adams as the “anti-christ” is a tad strong & perhaps stretching the imagination just a little teeny weeny bit ??? 🙂

    I suppose you’re right in the sense that at this moment it doesn’t seem that he is. But I wonder would you have said the same thing at the height of the Troubles.

    Of course, the answer is complex in that that Gerry Adams is “the beast who once was, now is not, and yet will come” (Rev 17:8). So at a certain time, he will not seem to be the beast, but a time will come when he return to being seen as the beast.

    Do you see what I mean, you’re talking about a riddle that defines Gerry Adams as a shadow who comes into and out of focus before coming back into focus.

    But all the fundamentals about Gerry Adams are true: His name comes out at 666, “Adam” appears in his name, he was shot and wounded, he got onto a Catholic altar while mocking Catholic teaching as inferior, and most of all he had the seven heads and still has the ten horns as his power.

    The hunger strikers are Gerry Adams’ power source in terms with his political project and he would have found the going too tough without those deaths. Without the hunger strikers Gerry Adams would most likely still be the underground leader of a rebellion that had disjointed support.

    So this thread and others about the Hunger strikers will do so much damage to the Sinn Fein project that they will fight to the death to protect their man. It really is that important.

  • Comrade Stalin

    I’d be in favour of removing the antichrist posts simply because I’m sick of the stupid spam.

  • deadmanonleave

    Sorry John, I think that your posts are reading like something out of a second rate novel or film.

    Personally, I have no interest in supernatural or biblical analogies, and simply want Adams et al to come clean about the truth, for the sake of the families, comrades and friends of all those who died, and who’s deaths could have been avoided.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    John O’Connell, why would you think it necessary to promote your religious experiences on a hunger-striker thread?

  • John O’Connell

    Live and let live, Comrade Stalin. In other words stop trying to live up to your nom de guerre.

    It’s not as simple as that, Deadmanonleave. These ten deaths gave Gerry Adams a severe advantage over the SDLP in particular, suggesting that men died just for Gerry et al. They may not seem to give anything to Gerry Adams of a supernatural kind but they turned a fairly unimpressive delinquent rebellion into a challenge to Christ and Christianity, as well as to the Catholic Church and the SDLP. He’s getting his dues now.

    It’s self explanatory, Ulster’s my Homeland. The ten horns of the beast are interpreted as the ten hunger strikers who made my life difficult when I was a teenage son of an SDLP councillor by making it out that these tin soldiers who hadn’t a chance of winning the war were better than me, my father and the decent men who decided that if you can’t win you don’t waste your energies and lives.

  • Ulsters my homeland

    Is Gerry really going to meet the Hunger Strikers Families?

    I still think it a hoax

  • Con O’Jonnell

    “His name comes out at 666, “

    What does it come out at in the irish spelling, John?

  • John O’Connell

    We’d have to look at that if Gerry Adams spelled his name in Irish, C O’J.

  • Con O’Jonnell

    He might switch to Irish to throw you off the scent, John-quick get the calculator out!

  • Ray

    John O’Connell,
    For the record, I have anoited myself as the Anti-Christ.
    I have no power, no nothing, but you now know who I am. I am setting the record straight. There needs to no futher clarification on the subject.
    As for your seven heads and ten horns scenario, maybe in reality that refers to the 7,000 paedophile priests and tens of thousands of little irish children that were raped by the 7,000 Irish paedophiles priests over the centuries.
    I do not hold anything against you because you are the son of an SDLPer.
    The hunger strike was one of the most extraordinary events in all human history. These powerless men stood against the might of the last remants of the evil British Empire. Their courage was rarely matched in the history of human kind. It was a singular moment and they and their families deserve the utmost of respect, dignity, and gratitude.
    I do not need to remind you that 150 years ago England tried to starve the Irish out of existence in what should be properly referred to as the Potato Genocide. Millions were deliberately starved to death.
    A couple of hundred years before that Cromwell unleashed his Ethnic Cleansing on Ireland with “To Hell or Connaught” and tens of thousands of Irish were sold into slavery into the Caribeann, but the Irish still refuse to acknowledge Cromwell’s heinious crime against humanity.
    We salute the hunger strikers and their families in the most reverent of terms.
    We also want the truth, the full truth, and nothing less. Half-truths and omissions will not suffice.

  • John O’Connell


    I hold no ill-feeling towards the hunger strikers. But members of the IRA must accept responsibility for their actions and thus you should not attempt to deflect attention away from their actions by relying on the actions of priests to prove their relative innocence. There were a lot of children messed up by the IRA campaign.

    I agree largely with your analysis of British involvement in Irish woes and would add that my analysis already accounts for the English language area to be defined as Bablyon, the evil empire of the Book of Revelation, and therefore a much more sinister agent in these events than Gerry Adams and the IRA. You should be under no illusions about that.

  • Seymour Major

    I recently watched an interview on U Tube showing Gerry Adams being interviewed by the BBC. This was taken after the 10 had died but while the hunger strike was still on.

    It does not shed light, directly, on what happened in the negotiations before the death of the six but interestingly, it gives an indication of how keen Gerry Adams was to ensure that he was not seen to be influencing the prisoners to go on or to continue with the hunger strike.

    The BBC report focused on what how much control the IRA had over the hunger strikes.

    On the video, the showed a document containing internal IRA rules which indicated that those in the organisation could not go on hunger strike without the express permission of headquarters.

    IN the interview, Adams said that the IRA “supported” the hunger strikes.

    He said that he had a conversation with Bobby Sands in which he indicated that the movement was “Morally opposed” to the hunger strikes. He then added “we are morally, strategically and tactically” opposed to the hunger strikes.

    He also said that “the hunger strike situation was created out of an intensity of prison protest of which no-one on the outside would have control”


    John o’Connell – why dont you please cease this bizarre ‘trolling’ on this thread ? You are just making a nuisance of yourself online & basically, you are being allowed to get away with it.
    As i am quite sure you are aware, if you started spouting this sh*t anywhere else you would eventually end up getting your forehead annointed with an inverted symbol – an inverted nike symbol most likely.

    Lets concentrate on the ‘ball’ & thats the call for an inquiry into the ‘deal’ rejected by the sf leadership in 1981. Let John O’C take his BS & numerology back to the ‘stoops’ – let them deal with it

  • John O’Connell


    I like the idea of an inquiry into the Hunger Strikes of 1981. But I think that Gerry Adams will continue to lie and that can’t be understood unless you understand that he believes that his destiny is to be greater than Jesus Christ, and therefore must never be tarnished by mistake.

    Ten men died for his political career and he believes that that means he is that good enough to warrant their comradeship and martyrdom.

    In short, you either get the message that Gerry Adams is Christ returned who did it his way or that he isn’t. In which case who is he that he can earn the accolades he’s getting about this issue?

    Is militant republicanism claiming to be the new Christianity? Is Gerry Adams claiming to be the new Christ? Or is it all about a challenge to Christ coming from the forces of darkness?

    I think I’ve just summed up the debate that is really going on on this thread.

  • Cynic

    “I sincerely hope that the SF leadership comes clean”

    Dream on!!!!