Bobby Sands

[EireEmerald]

Bobby Sands, a man who gave his life for what he believed to be right. A man who grew up under a sectarian government, a government that segregated Catholic people, a man who lost his job for being catholic, forced out of his carpentry apprentiship at gunpoint because of his religion, forced to leave his home out of intimidation.

A man who starved himself to death because he was refused political status in prison.

Was this man a hero for what he did ( as many label him ) or a terrorist. Or simply a man reacting to his times and the situation he was placed in, that being a society completely against his favour.

Republican prisoners had organised a series of protests seeking to regain their previous Special Category Status and not be subject to ordinary prison regulations. This started with the "blanket protest" in 1976, when the prisoners refused to wear prison uniform and wore blankets instead. In 1978, after a number of attacks on prisoners leaving their cells to "slop out" , this escalated into the dirty protest, where prisoners refused to wash and smeared the walls of their cells with excrement.[16]
Hunger strike

The 1981 Irish hunger strike started with Sands refusing food on 1 March 1981. Sands decided that other prisoners should join the strike at staggered intervals in order to maximise publicity with prisoners steadily deteriorating successively over several months.
The hunger strike centred around the "Five Demands":

1. the right not to wear a prison uniform;
2. the right not to do prison work;
3. the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
4. the right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
5. full restoration of remission lost through the protest

Also, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE look at it from his point of view, his backround, what happened to him and his community growing up and the history of the situation before you judge on him being a BLATANT TERRORIST or HERO! please don't be biased.

 

[Yorkshireman]

Fairly incompetent terrorist who died because he did'nt want to wear a prison uniform.

 

[EireEmerald]

Fairly incompetent terrorist who died because he did'nt want to wear a prison uniform.

Even some loyalists admitted for having respect to him. He wanted political status. Something he was denied. The term " terrorism" is completely relative. the British considered the men of 1916 and 1921 terrorists. The men that killed innocents during the troubles were terrorists.

It was a period of life here which inspired extraordinarily strong emotional responses. During the hunger strike Sands was elected a Westminster MP in a by-election. Many Catholics, who didn't support the IRA campaign, found themselves electorally propelled into the arms of republicans, out of sympathy for the plight of the prisoners and revulsion at Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's apparently heartless attitude. A reported 100,000 people attended Sands' funeral after he died on May 5, twenty-seven years ago. It was the start of Sinn Féin's rise and eventual pre-eminence over the IRA within the Republican Movement.
Bobby Sands was and is many things to many people. To some the ultimate selfless hero, to others a ruthless villain.

 

[Ron Burgundy?]

The Wolfe Tones used to have a song I loved growing up referring to Bobby Sands..... Joe McDonnell I believe...

 

[Poach]

A rather stupid "freedom fighter" who thought he was too special for prison, in my opinion.

 

[Yorkshireman]

To some the ultimate selfless hero, to others a ruthless villain.

There you go. Nothing (for me at least) to argue over. Though he certainly was'nt a ruthless terrorist, short gun battle, left 2 wounded men behind, capture. Not exactly the Border Fox.

 

[Azog 150]

A guy who died a rather pointless death and just helped to spark more violence and hatred. I have some respect in that he was willing to die slowly and painfully for his beliefs (Not that I agreed with him and I think his method was pretty stupid), but that's it.

 

[Ciabhán]

It was his way of trying to do something about the problems he and others faced during that time.

While I can respect his dedication to the cause, we already had more than enough martyrs, what we needed were leaders(level-headed ones, the type who get things done behind the scenes often out of public view/not the charismatic 'dashing' rogue or above stated martyrs that we produced so often).

 

[Shamrock Rover]

Hero. Man of his times. Grew up being treated like .

 

[EireEmerald]

Whatever his beliefs he had determination to starve himself to death because of the way Catholics were being treated. Any CE contributor can slate him for being a "terrorist" but would they be willing to starve themselves for the way their people were being treated? I doubt it.

There you go. Nothing (for me at least) to argue over. Though he certainly was'nt a ruthless terrorist, short gun battle, left 2 wounded men behind, capture. Not exactly the Border Fox.

Circumstance. if you were him, if you were fired, kicked out of your home and bullied for being Catholic you would have done the same if not worse, I know I would. And No, he wasn't a ruthless terrorist, far from it. In fact, i do not think he was one. I still stay true to what i said, many British see him as a terrorist now, as they do the men of 1916, 1921 for killing British soldiers. But he will be seen as a hero in years to come in Irish history. he is already being mentioned in history books. i you not.

 

[tonymurphy1888]

I said terrorist but the words a bit strong more like a terrorist lite.

 

[EireEmerald]

I said terrorist but the words a bit strong more like a terrorist lite.

He wasn't a terrorist then, he either is or isn't a terrorist. He didn't kill anyone. He was standing up to a sectarian government of segreration and intimidation. He died for what he believed in.

 

[tonymurphy1888]

He wasn't a terrorist then, he either is or isn't a terrorist. He didn't kill anyone. He was standing up to a sectarian government of segreration and intimidation. He died for what he believed in.

Wasent he arrested for carrying a weapon from which bullets were fired at the RUC

 

[Azog 150]

^Yeah. He was caught with firearms twice. The second time he was caught , he also left two of his wounded mates behind to be captured and possibly die. Even if you agree with his beliefs etc or admire the way he stood up for them, I don't see how you can call him a hero thanks to that.

Sure, I have never been in that situation. But I would like to think I wouldn't abandon my friends, and if I did abandon my friends (And then proceeded to starve myself to death) I certainly wouldn't think I was a hero nor would I expect anyone else to

 

[tonymurphy1888]

^Yeah. He was caught with firearms twice. The second time he was caught , he also left two of his wounded mates behind to be captured and possibly die. Even if you agree with his beliefs etc or admire the way he stood up for them, I don't see how you can call him a hero thanks to that.

Yeah the guy was an idiot you can't carry guns and the play all political prisioner

 

[Ciabhán]

Shooting at the RUC was everyone's God-given duty no matter their sectarian allegiance.

Bloody bastards. I actually preferred the Paras and RMs to the jumped up security guards, with a license to abuse their authority, that the RUC so often were.

 

[Azog 150]

Whatever your views on the RUC, leaving wounded friends behind to die or be imprisoned isn't anyones idea of heroic.

 

[Ciabhán]

Whatever your views on the RUC, leaving wounded friends behind to die or be imprisoned isn't anyones idea of heroic.

Aye I never said it was. I was at his funeral and I remember standing there with my Da and some of his lads and wondering why this particular martyr was so special. My father thought he was bloody idiot as well if that helps. As I said in my first post Ireland had enough 'martyrs' already.

 

[EireEmerald]

Wasent he arrested for carrying a weapon from which bullets were fired at the RUC

From what I heard that gun had no bullets in it.

 

[tonymurphy1888]

From what I heard that gun had no bullets in it.

No i mean they matched the bullets to the gun some CSI like stuff scratches and lines, bullet crupledness etc.

 

[EireEmerald]

Bobby Sands did some ugly things. He promoted some ugly things too. Of course, the British and the Unionists also did some heinous, unjust things as well. If you disagree with this, I think you better take a closer look.
What I would celebrate in Bobby Sands is that he died to communicate dissidence. The staggered hunger strike was a means to broadcast protest; he died a slow and painful death in order to convey his dissent. I think that’s notable.
Like Marc, I’m principally Italian-American, but I have closely studied Irish literary personalities on both sides.

The word "terrorist" is thrown around too lightly. Many during the American revolutionary war, for example, called the Sons of Liberty (which maintained cells they called “committees” to do targeted, under cover of night strikes against the Brits – including burning down homes with people still in them) terrorists.

^Yeah. He was caught with firearms twice. The second time he was caught , he also left two of his wounded mates behind to be captured and possibly die. Even if you agree with his beliefs etc or admire the way he stood up for them, I don't see how you can call him a hero thanks to that.

Sure, I have never been in that situation. But I would like to think I wouldn't abandon my friends, and if I did abandon my friends (And then proceeded to starve myself to death) I certainly wouldn't think I was a hero nor would I expect anyone else to

Yes Azog, that is all well and good and well done for pointing that out but it is very easy to say that you wouldn't have left your friends behind in that situation while sitting down on your comfy deskside chair.
You have to decide, it is war, the " no man is left behind " is all well and good in theory " but when it comes down to the situation and there are bullets flying, you are not only putting your " operation " ( if that is what they called it back then ) at risk but the group or organisation your are working for.

 

[tonymurphy1888]

Bobby Sands did some ugly things. He promoted some ugly things too. Of course, the British and the Unionists also did some heinous, unjust things as well. If you disagree with this, I think you better take a closer look.
What I would celebrate in Bobby Sands is that he died to communicate dissidence. The staggered hunger strike was a means to broadcast protest; he died a slow and painful death in order to convey his dissent. I think that’s notable.
Like Marc, I’m principally Italian-American, but I have closely studied Irish literary personalities on both sides.

The word "terrorist" is thrown around too lightly. Many during the American revolutionary war, for example, called the Sons of Liberty (which maintained cells they called “committees” to do targeted, under cover of night strikes against the Brits – including burning down homes with people still in them) terrorists.



Yes Azog, that is all well and good and well done for pointing that out but it is very easy to say that you wouldn't have left your friends behind in that situation while sitting down on your comfy deskside chair.
You have to decide, it is war, the " no man is left behind " is all well and good in theory " but when it comes down to the situation and there are bullets flying, you are not only putting your " operation " ( if that is what they called it back then ) at risk but the group or organisation your are working for.

I already said its too harsh a word but as far as the Brits are concerned two wrongs dont make a right , the early IRA knew that to do what the modern IRA done was even worse than what the English done the sullied the civilised name of the early IRA by doing what the old IRA would not. They blew up schools the killed innocents they were terrorists

 

[EireEmerald]

I already said its too harsh a word but as far as the Brits are concerned two wrongs dont make a right , the early IRA knew that to do what the modern IRA done was even worse than what the English done the sullied the civilised name of the early IRA by doing what the old IRA would not. They blew up schools the killed innocents they were terrorists

A lot of what the modern IRA did was awful but the majority, I am not saying all the time, of the time they targetted officials. Even the massacre at Omagh was intended elsewhere.

 

[Azog 150]

Yes Azog, that is all well and good and well done for pointing that out but it is very easy to say that you wouldn't have left your friends behind in that situation while sitting down on your comfy deskside chair.
You have to decide, it is war, the " no man is left behind " is all well and good in theory " but when it comes down to the situation and there are bullets flying, you are not only putting your " operation " ( if that is what they called it back then ) at risk but the group or organisation your are working for.

Like I said, if I did run away (I never said I would stay, just that I like to think I would) then I wouldn't consider myself a hero and I certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to.

As for putting the operation at risk, maybe so. But Bobby Sands proved to be a pretty lousy PIRA member anyway. He got caught several times with firearms, nearly got convicted of several other failed operations, got in an unsuccesful shoot out with the RUC in which no one was hurt but his fellow PIRA members, and then he proceeded to get captured.

I would also like to point out that while its all well and good he wasn't happy not being treated like a Political Prisoner or POW, if it was the other way around and an RUC or British Army member was captured by PIRA, then they could fully expect to be tortured and killed. Not saying the British government should have tortured and killed IRA members, but I am saying having to wear convicts clothes and be treated like a normal prisoner is hardly something to starve yourself to death over (Like I said, I respect him for sticking to his views in such a way, but thats it). Maybe he figured he had to make himself known that way as he certainly wasn't going to do it by launching effective operations against the British governmnet (As he had shown he was useless at doing so....)

 

[hellheaven1987]

IRA... It is really hard to classify whether IRA is terrorist or freedom fighter... After all, British government did oppress Catholics in Northern Ireland at that time...

If IRA only attack British government I would label them freedom fighter - after all, British government did deserve it.

 

[Azog 150]

But they did target civilians. We will undoubtedly get a few people here saying 'Oh, but the IRA warned people when they were planting bombs'. The fact is, if you plant bombs in public areas you are undoubtedly going to kill civilians (warning or not) and they knew this. Plus, they also liked to kill unarmed off-duty RUC members in their homes in front of their families (although they sometimes liked to kidnap and torture them first, sometimes killing family members as well). Would you class an off duty police officer as a civilian or a legitimate government target (Regardless of whether or not you like the RUC)?

 

[EireEmerald]

But they did target civilians. We will undoubtedly get a few people here saying 'Oh, but the IRA warned people when they were planting bombs'. The fact is, if you plant bombs in public areas you are undoubtedly going to kill civilians (warning or not) and they knew this. Plus, they also liked to kill unarmed off-duty RUC members in their homes in front of their families (although they sometimes liked to kidnap and torture them first, sometimes killing family members as well). Would you class an off duty police officer as a civilian or a legitimate government target (Regardless of whether or not you like the RUC)?

Certain IRA members did, to raise awareness for their campaign. International awareness was Britain's biggest enemy IMO.

The killing of innocents was unmistakably terrorism, or at leasta form of it. Don't forget, the killing of an innocent man in a pub in Belfast, followed by the killing of unarmed peaceful protestors in Derry led to THE BIGGEST IRA RECRUITMENT IN ITS HISTORY in Northern Ireland.

The IRA did give warnings before nearly every bomb from what i have heard. I am almost convinced that the British gov ignored some of those warnings to incriminate the IRA even further. And I am not the only person who thinks that.

 

[hellheaven1987]

But they did target civilians. We will undoubtedly get a few people here saying 'Oh, but the IRA warned people when they were planting bombs'. The fact is, if you plant bombs in public areas you are undoubtedly going to kill civilians (warning or not) and they knew this. Plus, they also liked to kill unarmed off-duty RUC members in their homes in front of their families (although they sometimes liked to kidnap and torture them first, sometimes killing family members as well). Would you class an off duty police officer as a civilian or a legitimate government target (Regardless of whether or not you like the RUC)?

And British military did not?? Do I need to point out it was British military who brutally put down peaceful protest first??

IRA was purely a reaction responded the violent reaction British government gave when Catholic demanded equal right - shame on British government.

 

[Azog 150]

The British military did not in any way purposefully kill civilians. Of course there were horrible incidents (Obviously Bloody Sunday being the main one. In fact, Bloody Sunday happened becuase PIRA got in touch with the British saying they would be active in the area on the day of the protest. Although saying the British soldiers of Bloody Sunday were jumpy or had itchy trigger fingers would be a massive understatement, if PIRA had not been threatening to shoot British soldiers I doubt it would have happened), but they did not go around planting bombs in public areas, mudering people in their homes, kidnapping or torturing them.

And no, the IRA was not a reaction to that. PIRA was around before Bloody Sunday (If thats what you are referring to). Although Bloody Sunday gave them a massive boost in recruitment, PIRA murders happened before then.



Or maybe you are getting Loyalst Paramilitaries (Who I believe are just as bad as the IRA) mixed up with the British Army?

Certain IRA members did, to raise awareness for their campaign. International awareness was Britain's biggest enemy IMO.

Oh, that makes it perfectly okay then.

 

[hellheaven1987]

The British military did not in any way purposefully kill civilians. Of course there were horrible incidents (Obviously Bloody Sunday being the main one), but they did not go around planting bombs in public areas, mudering people in their homes, kidnapping or torturing them.

And no, the IRA was not a reaction to that. PIRA was around before Bloody Sunday (If thats what you are referring to). Although Bloody Sunday gave them a massive boost in recruitment, PIRA murders happened before then.



Or maybe you are getting Loyalst Paramilitaries (Who I believe are just as bad as the IRA) mixed up with the British Army?

Ya right, accident, how about forced house searching in midnight?? Good accident that SAS entered your house for fun??