[Shasown]

Originally Posted by setanta

And sorry, about the hunger strikers: they were asking for political status and were willing to die for their cause. Just think about that for a second. To starve oneself for what you believe in. These are not the actions of men hellbent on bloodletting - they're the actions of people who firmly believe in a cause that's worth fighting for. A war worth fighting for. Have you watched Hunger? Staggeringly brilliant film and directed by an Englishman.

Yes one of the best films I have ever seen.

Not the actions of men hellbent on bloodletting?

Bobby Sands, jailed for possession of a frirearm, charges of bombing dropped due to lack of evidence, charges for being involved in shootout with the RUC droppped through lack of evidence.
Francis Hughes - murder, attempted murder.
Raymond McCreesh - attempted murder, possession of a rifle and ammunition
Patsy O'Hara - Possessing a hand grenade.
Joe McDonnell - Possession of a firearm.
Martin Hurson - Involvement in planting landmines and other explosives offences.
Kevin Lynch - stealing shotguns, taking part in a punishment shooting and conspiring to take arms from the security forces
Kieron Doherty - possession of firearms and explosives and hijacking a car.
Thomas McElwee, murder, reduced on appeal to manslaughter. Planting firebombs.
Michael Devine - possession of rifles, shotguns and possession of 3,000 rounds of ammunition.

Squeaky clean bunch eh?

Generally speaking about their convictions, when they were done for possession of, it wasnt found in their homes or sheds or anything like that, it was in their possession as they were going to use it. Attempted murder or manslaughter were dropped unless it could be proven they had actually tried to commitor committed the offences.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Yes one of the best films I have ever seen.

Not the actions of men hellbent on bloodletting?

Bobby Sands, jailed for possession of a frirearm, charges of bombing dropped due to lack of evidence, charges for being involved in shootout with the RUC droppped through lack of evidence.
Francis Hughes - murder, attempted murder.
Raymond McCreesh - attempted murder, possession of a rifle and ammunition
Patsy O'Hara - Possessing a hand grenade.
Joe McDonnell - Possession of a firearm.
Martin Hurson - Involvement in planting landmines and other explosives offences.
Kevin Lynch - stealing shotguns, taking part in a punishment shooting and conspiring to take arms from the security forces
Kieron Doherty - possession of firearms and explosives and hijacking a car.
Thomas McElwee, murder, reduced on appeal to manslaughter. Planting firebombs.
Michael Devine - possession of rifles, shotguns and possession of 3,000 rounds of ammunition.

Squeaky clean bunch eh?

Generally speaking about their convictions, when they were done for possession of, it wasnt found in their homes or sheds or anything like that, it was in their possession as they were going to use it. Attempted murder or manslaughter were dropped unless it could be proven they had actually tried to commitor committed the offences.

I never said that they didn't fight for their cause, just mentioning the sacrifices they were willing to make, that's all. Is it called murder during a war? I mean, it was a war for them.... their hunger strike proves what they were willing to give for the cause.

Yeah, Hunger is a masterpiece.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by setanta

I never said that they didn't fight for their cause, just mentioning the sacrifices they were willing to make, that's all. Is it called murder during a war? I mean, it was a war for them.... their hunger strike proves what they were willing to give for the cause.

Yeah, Hunger is a masterpiece.

But thats the whole point of the hunger strike, it wasn't a war it was an internal security situation in the eyes of the British Government, therefore the men in the Maze/Long Kesh werent political prisoners, they were convicted criminals.

If the British had conceded to all the points the hunger strikers requested, it would have validated all the claims of the IRA. It would have made them appear to the world to be freedom fighters and not just terrorists.

Plus there were some members of the loyalist and the nationalist factions who had commited crimes like bank and post office robberies to finance the conflict, these are civil crimes. so differentiation between the real volunteers and the criminals who had lined their own pockets and put some money to their organisations coffers would have been a nightmare.

Consequently even O'Rawe admits they were willing to concede some of the points, but not all of them. But according to him he was told all or nothing, say nothing about concessions.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Shasown

But thats the whole point of the hunger strike, it wasn't a war it was an internal security situation in the eyes of the British Government, therefore the men in the Maze/Long Kesh werent political prisoners, they were convicted criminals.

If the British had conceded to all the points the hunger strikers requested, it would have validated all the claims of the IRA. It would have made them appear to the world to be freedom fighters and not just terrorists.

Plus there were some members of the loyalist and the nationalist factions who had commited crimes like bank and post office robberies to finance the conflict, these are civil crimes. so differentiation between the real volunteers and the criminals who had lined their own pockets and put some money to their organisations coffers would have been a nightmare.

Consequently even O'Rawe admits they were willing to concede some of the points, but not all of them. But according to him he was told all or nothing, say nothing about concessions.

But I would argue that they were political prisoners as they were fighting for a cause, rather than mere self interest, you know? They were willing to die for it. That's a bold mission statement that generated so much publicity for the movement when it was actually in disarray for awhile at the time following negotiatings falling through and things like that. And don't forget that the British had been in talks with the IRA prior to this situation.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by setanta

But I would argue that they were political prisoners as they were fighting for a cause, rather than mere self interest, you know? They were willing to die for it. That's a bold mission statement that generated so much publicity for the movement when it was actually in disarray for awhile at the time following negotiatings falling through and things like that. And don't forget that the British had been in talks with the IRA prior to this situation.

That was the problem though, yes they were fighting for a cause, however if they had targeted only government installations or troops, they would have had a lot more respect. It was the indiscriminate nature of some of their attacks.

Crippling the centre of Belfast and Derry, again nope its simply attacking the society they live in.

Obviously the tit for tat sectarianism did neither side any good, however the british press did play down a lot of unionist atrocities. That was totally wrong. Very few reports went in depth on things like the Shankill Butchers.

Just like the Catholic Community quickly turned against the troops, reason, they were in support of the civil power, technically an aid to the police. Who were the police? The loyalists, so they were ordered to stop civil rights marches, tear down barricades that were actually needed to defend communities from loyalist attacks. Disarm the catholic communities and ignore the loyalists, for the moment. While it seemed that the loyalists were getting away with murder(well they were literally.)

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Shasown

That was the problem though, yes they were fighting for a cause, however if they had targeted only government installations or troops, they would have had a lot more respect. It was the indiscriminate nature of some of their attacks.

Crippling the centre of Belfast and Derry, again nope its simply attacking the society they live in.

Obviously the tit for tat sectarianism did neither side any good, however the british press did play down a lot of unionist atrocities. That was totally wrong. Very few reports went in depth on things like the Shankill Butchers.

Just like the Catholic Community quickly turned against the troops, reason, they were in support of the civil power, technically an aid to the police. Who were the police? The loyalists, so they were ordered to stop civil rights marches, tear down barricades that were actually needed to defend communities from loyalist attacks. Disarm the catholic communities and ignore the loyalists, for the moment. While it seemed that the loyalists were getting away with murder(well they were literally.)

But that society had targeted them too, you know? Looting, violence etc. They were hardly in a comfortable position and were obviously enraged.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by setanta

But that society had targeted them too, you know? Looting, violence etc. They were hardly in a comfortable position and were obviously enraged.

I know but thats what most people dont understand. They could have sat back and took it all, lost a decent number of lives and waited, eventually Stormont would have been dissolved, eventually the loyalist factions would have been rounded up and disarmed. But how many lives did they have to lose.

Thats why I dont really lay blame on either the troops or the IRA. In fact there are quite a few members of the IRA I hold in great respect. Certainly McGuinness has done a lot to foster peace over there. Similarly for all I dislike Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and George Bush, some credit should be given to those three as well amongst a whole host of others.