Not sure there is anyone posting here that was born in the early 60s. We are all relying on books etc and stories by the fireside. Great point Kev. Well made as always.
Sands wanted to be remembered for dying for Ireland. Instead it pushed the North further into a sectarian civil war.
A thread should be about debate of which there is precious little on here. This could be useful, although some like you lack the intelligence to debate anyway.
It’s just crazy talk from a crazy man that’s best ignored but I have an unexpected few minutes before lunch to waste. The IRA didn’t care about civil rights or peace apparently. Yet they fought for one and had a ceasefire for the other. And TASE made the very salient point, ignored by those who think they know better, that Sands died for political status. The hunger strikes was the great politicisation of the republican movement. It wasn’t just about the sacrifice. It was how that galvanised political and mainstream support for republicans, that has evolved into the situation we have today.
Wars aren’t always won on the battlefield but the arms struggle was always going to end in a negotiated settlement. That’s a basic aim of guerilla warfare. You don’t rule a country through guerilla warfare. You create enough military damage to bring about a political settlement. Whether Sands would have supported the GFA or not is irrelevant really, nobody could say for certain. Arguing that he wouldn’t suppot the idea of a settlement is blinkered however.
I was KIB man and I remember this time vividly. It really was a terrible episode in our history but I wouldn’t propose to engage in debate on it in this thread. [quote=“KIB man, post: 586334”]
Not sure there is anyone posting here that was born in the early 60s. We are all relying on books etc and stories by the fireside. Great point Kev. Well made as always.
Sands wanted to be remembered for dying for Ireland. Instead it pushed the North further into a sectarian civil war.
A thread should be about debate of which there is precious little on here. This could be useful, although some like you lack the intelligence to debate anyway.
If you wished to have a debate about Mr Sands and the Northern situation you could have opened your own thread to do so instead of transfering your bland opinionated shite into TDB’s thread when he specifically asked you not to.
But since when did you ever read someone elses post on here before trotting out your usual claptrap.
The IRA did not fight for civil rights. You could argue they fought to defend Catholics from loyalist pogroms and the British Army but the actually tried to stop the support of Hume etc. The British army murdering 14 in Derry finished the Civil Rights movement really and drove popular support back into the IRA who were hellbent on widening social divisions in Norn iron not healing them. Murdering 600 + civilians is not fighting for civil rights.
Well obviously a ceasefire is peace.
Sands certainly didnt die for the politication of republicanism. That is revionism at its best, the hunger strike was well under away before his election as MP. It was after his death that the big move towards the ballot box happened. Which was the effect of the hunger strikes alright Id agree, Adams etc saw the power of the ballot box and he slowly moved republicanism towards it. It took quite a while though after the end of the hunger strikes even for this to occur. 13 years actually to the 1994 ceasefire.
So the desire for a 32 county republic and a united Ireland was only ever a smokescreen? If it was always going to be about a negotiated settlement maybe they should have refrained from murdering civilians in their droves (600 + let us not forget) and played an active part in a horrific civil war, seen as how they would be negotiating that settlement with the other side.
i couldnt really give a shit what he requested. its an open internet forum. If he wanted people to fawn over Sands without debate he could head to the nearest Glasgow Celtic supporters club in North county dublin.
What has the early60’s got to do with it? I grew up in the 80’s and was very aware of everything that was going on, even if far removed physically, as were my family and those around me.
Sands made people think, and had their been a different PM in Britan who knows what the results of it were going to be.
Massively important points made there.
Proof, if ever it was needed, that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about and only argue with this because of a throw away comment you made a couple of years ago in relation to Celtic. You are a moron.
Back in Ireland now as well, thought you got sponsored by those great guys in Sydney? :rolleyes:
Agreed, no matter what a vile man like KIB thinks.
Sad that a thread of homage to one of Ireland’s true sons has been turned into a farce by the actions of a few cowards - even when the OP explicitly requested them not to.
Would it be possible for admin to remove the distasteful comments and place them into another thread?
let say for arguments sake you are 35 - still playing junior b etc - born 1976. at the age of 5 you were very aware of bobby sands, the hunger strikes etc - some were learning a,b,c but kev was coherently following the hunger strikes. not sure what has happened since with you but you must have been a child prodigy.
if there was a different PM in Britain - there wasnt.
Im interested in a debate on irish history not explaining to you the wonders of modern technology. believe it or not the internet is in sydney . let that be lesson one for you today you IT expert you.
The IRA fighting for civil rights while murdering 600 + civilians has to be one of the most warped and deluded mindsets going.