Can anyone tell me how those hunger strikers are doing who were taken off hunger strike when it ended? How are they physically/emotionally? Have many died?
Also, how do those strikers feel whose families took them off hunger strike when they lapsed into coma? I'd appreciate any insight.
Matt devlin died fairly young man a couple years ago.
I know Pat (beag) McGeown died about 10 years ago and it was said it was because of the length of time he was on hunger strike, he was 40 odd when he died only.
Laurence McKeown spent 70 days on hunger strike (longer than most of the 10 dead strikers) and he is alive and well today. He has a book 'Nor meekly serve my time' which will give you an insight into their emotions etc.
Oraisteach, mightn't be much use, but have a read of this piece.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/mar/04/northernireland.northernireland
Thank you all for the responses. Gaoth Dobhair, the article is just what I was seeking. Doogie, I'll try and get my hands on the book.
Jim Devine, aged 24 from Strabane, joined the Hunger Strike on Monday 21st September 1981, and he's doing OK these days, to the best of my knowledge. He was the 23rd on the list.
Paddy Quinn from Belleeks is alive and well... His eyesight is frigged.
Doesnt stop him driving though.. Gonna cause a bad accident one of these days!!
Great bit of reading there gda. Thanks.
Paddy Quinn from south Armagh lost his eyesight during the hungerstrike, his mother took him off it. he still about at the minute. i think he got the eyesight back in one eye
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
What has that got to do with anything?
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Are you wondering if people who died think it was worth dying?
Quote from: Zapatista on March 27, 2009, 09:44:06 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Are you wondering if people who died think it was worth dying?
Did they all die?
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:45:41 AM
Did they all die?
What has Sinn Fein in 2009 got to do with the five demands of 1981?
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:45:41 AM
Quote from: Zapatista on March 27, 2009, 09:44:06 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Are you wondering if people who died think it was worth dying?
Did they all die?
No but you can find out were the other stand if you have a look. There were more hungerstrikes than just the men of 1981 and many of them have made there opinions known.
Why would that be your question rather than - do they think it was worth it regarding what they were demanding and what they won and lost.
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
what a stupid statement how would anyone know that,the only people who can come close to answering that are thier comrades and fellow hunger strikers,most support the direction Sinn Fein took but a few disagree.
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Well according to the article, the general consensus is the fact that SF renounced violence and went the political way meant that it was worth it. But one of the hunger strikers took the opposing view that McGuinness and Adams were scumbags who sold them out and for him the war will never end (or not end until there is a 32 county Ireland).
Speaking of which I heard Eamon O'Cuiv on the radio during the week - I think he was basically saying that if we agreed that a 32 county Ireland would join the Commonwealth, then a 32 county Ireland would be much more likely to become a reality. A bit of give, a bit of take. Seemed to make sense.
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2009, 04:49:12 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Well according to the article, the general consensus is the fact that SF renounced violence and went the political way meant that it was worth it. But one of the hunger strikers took the opposing view that McGuinness and Adams were scumbags who sold them out and for him the war will never end (or not end until there is a 32 county Ireland).
Speaking of which I heard Eamon O'Cuiv on the radio during the week - I think he was basically saying that if we agreed that a 32 county Ireland would join the Commonwealth, then a 32 county Ireland would be much more likely to become a reality. A bit of give, a bit of take. Seemed to make sense.
Join the commonwealth? So what does that entail?
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2009, 04:49:12 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Well according to the article, the general consensus is the fact that SF renounced violence and went the political way meant that it was worth it. But one of the hunger strikers took the opposing view that McGuinness and Adams were scumbags who sold them out and for him the war will never end (or not end until there is a 32 county Ireland).
Speaking of which I heard Eamon O'Cuiv on the radio during the week - I think he was basically saying that if we agreed that a 32 county Ireland would join the Commonwealth, then a 32 county Ireland would be much more likely to become a reality. A bit of give, a bit of take. Seemed to make sense.
FG have been saying that for years. It's not the only theory either. If the republic joined the Union and ceased to be a republic a 32 county would become a reality too.
For me that's a token nationalism for a people who do not want anything to do with the Commonwealth and flys in the face of what Republicanism is.
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2009, 04:49:12 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Well according to the article, the general consensus is the fact that SF renounced violence and went the political way meant that it was worth it. But one of the hunger strikers took the opposing view that McGuinness and Adams were scumbags who sold them out and for him the war will never end (or not end until there is a 32 county Ireland).
Speaking of which I heard Eamon O'Cuiv on the radio during the week - I think he was basically saying that if we agreed that a 32 county Ireland would join the Commonwealth, then a 32 county Ireland would be much more likely to become a reality. A bit of give, a bit of take. Seemed to make sense.
have heard from relatives from more than a few or the hunger strikers families that the family consensus was that they are happy with how the quality of life has improved no end in the north of Ireland and that they are pleased with how its gone.
Its not all down to sf, but have to say they did contribute towards this also. sdlp didnt properly represent most of the people and the people have spoken and sdlp are on theri last legs
I mind when Tom McElwee & Mick Devine died that it was way down on the news bulletins. The guys who could have been 11th/12th/13th to die , and their families, must have thought was it worth it by then.
Quote from: Zapatista on March 27, 2009, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2009, 04:49:12 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Well according to the article, the general consensus is the fact that SF renounced violence and went the political way meant that it was worth it. But one of the hunger strikers took the opposing view that McGuinness and Adams were scumbags who sold them out and for him the war will never end (or not end until there is a 32 county Ireland).
Speaking of which I heard Eamon O'Cuiv on the radio during the week - I think he was basically saying that if we agreed that a 32 county Ireland would join the Commonwealth, then a 32 county Ireland would be much more likely to become a reality. A bit of give, a bit of take. Seemed to make sense.
FG have been saying that for years. It's not the only theory either. If the republic joined the Union and ceased to be a republic a 32 county would become a reality too.
For me that's a token nationalism for a people who do not want anything to do with the Commonwealth and flys in the face of what Republicanism is.
What about give and take?
Is a mantra more important than a 32 county Ireland?
Being part of the commonwealth doesn't seem to negatively impact on Australia, New Zealand or Canada. If that's what it took , it'd be a very small price in my view.
One of the hunger strikers had won an All-Ireland Hurling medal and as far as I can remember was casptain for his county on the day.
Kevin Lynch U-16 DIII - Must have played against him since I was on the Armagh team that beat Derry the year before.
Quote from: Oraisteach on March 28, 2009, 08:03:41 PM
Kevin Lynch U-16 DIII - Must have played against him since I was on the Armagh team that beat Derry the year before.
Id seen this picture before
(http://www.gaelsport.com/image?tn=Images&key=imageID&colname=photoImage&keyval=1189)
Quote from: Hound on March 28, 2009, 12:41:05 PM
What about give and take?
Is a mantra more important than a 32 county Ireland?
Being part of the commonwealth doesn't seem to negatively impact on Australia, New Zealand or Canada. If that's what it took , it'd be a very small price in my view.
I'm all for give and take. That's what Republicanism is. I think we are just starting from different places though.
32 county Ireland is a mantra if you will accept it in any form, such as in a common wealth or a Union.
The fact that the common wealth doesn't impact negatively on these countries is irrelevant. My point is that a united Irish Republic is not a compromise it is just in itself. If a United Irish Republic decided to join the commonwealth I wouldn't have much room to complain but joining the CW should not be a precondition and a UI for that reason would be based on the lowest common mantra of nationalism.
Anyone able to post the article from the Sunday Times today? "IRA said "no" to hunger strike deal".............
Quote from: Donagh on March 27, 2009, 09:42:36 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
What has that got to do with anything?
Gerard Hodgins who was a hunger striker said in that article "the struggle didnt produce the results we had hoped for but the leadership ended up all right".
Quote from: Minder on April 05, 2009, 10:44:07 PM
Anyone able to post the article from the Sunday Times today? "IRA said "no" to hunger strike deal".............
Quote from: Donagh on March 27, 2009, 09:42:36 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
What has that got to do with anything?
Gerard Hodgins who was a hunger striker said in that article "the struggle didnt produce the results we had hoped for but the leadership ended up all right".
"There was absolutely no change in the government's position."
http://www.bobbysandstrust.com/archives/1069 (http://www.bobbysandstrust.com/archives/1069)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2009, 08:16:12 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2009, 04:49:12 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Well according to the article, the general consensus is the fact that SF renounced violence and went the political way meant that it was worth it. But one of the hunger strikers took the opposing view that McGuinness and Adams were scumbags who sold them out and for him the war will never end (or not end until there is a 32 county Ireland).
Speaking of which I heard Eamon O'Cuiv on the radio during the week - I think he was basically saying that if we agreed that a 32 county Ireland would join the Commonwealth, then a 32 county Ireland would be much more likely to become a reality. A bit of give, a bit of take. Seemed to make sense.
have heard from relatives from more than a few or the hunger strikers families that the family consensus was that they are happy with how the quality of life has improved no end in the north of Ireland and that they are pleased with how its gone.
Its not all down to sf, but have to say they did contribute towards this also. sdlp didnt properly represent most of the people and the people have spoken and sdlp are on theri last legs
The quality of life is better in pretty much every western society than it was 25-30 years ago so I don't know what this point means.
Quote from: Take Your Points on April 05, 2009, 11:00:12 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6036723.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6036723.ece)
The ET article is written as if it is stating documented fact.
Oldest trick in the book.
Why do you think there no attempt to balance out the slant of the article with printing the quoted words of Bik McFarlane?
Quote from: Take Your Points on April 05, 2009, 11:00:12 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6036723.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6036723.ece)
Yet another pile of bullshit peddled out. I've read all this before in various articles but still doesn't make these into facts.
That Liam Clarke has even attempted to get away with that article while ignoring the recently uncovered John Blelloch interview or even mentioning that Thatcher reneged on a deal six months earlier, proves once and for all that he has no credibility when commenting on these matters.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 05, 2009, 11:46:19 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2009, 08:16:12 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 27, 2009, 04:49:12 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 27, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
I wonder when they look at where Sinn Fein ended up would they think it was worth it.
Well according to the article, the general consensus is the fact that SF renounced violence and went the political way meant that it was worth it. But one of the hunger strikers took the opposing view that McGuinness and Adams were scumbags who sold them out and for him the war will never end (or not end until there is a 32 county Ireland).
Speaking of which I heard Eamon O'Cuiv on the radio during the week - I think he was basically saying that if we agreed that a 32 county Ireland would join the Commonwealth, then a 32 county Ireland would be much more likely to become a reality. A bit of give, a bit of take. Seemed to make sense.
have heard from relatives from more than a few or the hunger strikers families that the family consensus was that they are happy with how the quality of life has improved no end in the north of Ireland and that they are pleased with how its gone.
Its not all down to sf, but have to say they did contribute towards this also. sdlp didnt properly represent most of the people and the people have spoken and sdlp are on theri last legs
The quality of life is better in pretty much every western society than it was 25-30 years ago so I don't know what this point means.
other western societies didnt have to contend with what went on in the north of Ireland, so think of it with that in mind...
Quote from: Main Street on April 06, 2009, 12:16:12 AM
Quote from: Take Your Points on April 05, 2009, 11:00:12 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6036723.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6036723.ece)
The ET article is written as if it is stating documented fact.
Oldest trick in the book.
Why do you think there no attempt to balance out the slant of the article with printing the quoted words of Bik McFarlane?
its the same old rubbish as before. It wasnt true then and its still not carrying an ounce of truth 28 years later.
liam clarke's articles I ignore every sunday as he is a bitter twisted idiot with the same journolistic ideals of yesteryear - not an ounce of truth in his anti ira or anti sf rants.
This article seems to be trying to get at sf for whatever their reason is now.
to address some of their assertions in the article (yeah I read this one to see if there was actually something in it).
-sf were only starting out when the hunger strike was on and had nothing in terms of political power.
-the ira army council had no say in the hunger strikes - the start, who went on and when it ended.
-these 'concessions' were no more than were offered before- not the 'what the prisoners eventually ended up getting' as the prisoners actually ended up getting all 5 demands - and the strike was called off when they were told that they would get all 5 once it was ended.
-the NIO didnt even offer these concessions to the prisoners, they asked the family members present in the prison at the time to see if they would accept them and thereby take their relatives off the strike. One of them told the nio that they had to discuss this with the HS and not the families.
the nio knew that their offer fell way short and THEY left without even seeing the prisoners.
taking the words of 'out of the loop' richard o rawe and current day criminal inla's spokesperson (willie gallagher I think his name isand currently under investigation by cops for illegal theft and petty crime orchestrating) is a bit of a joke too.
Sure they may as well interview Tony Fearon for any anti north of Ireland soccer stories - as its the same kind of thing.
Another few years and I am sure they will resurrect this agan to try and get some creedence/newspaper sales/another pop at SF etc etc etc
And there I thought Tony was the real thing ;D.
I think it is pretty naive to accept SF's version of everything as fact, too many in the community seem prepared to accept what they say as gospel. They are politicians don't forget! People like Rick O'Rawe have their own agenda too but to discount them as 'out of the loop' and thus attempt to discredit their account is not fair either, he has first hand testimony after all, much more than most of us I would hazard.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 10:30:02 AM
I think it is pretty naive to accept SF's version of everything as fact, too many in the community seem prepared to accept what they say as gospel. They are politicians don't forget! People like Rick O'Rawe have their own agenda too but to discount them as 'out of the loop' and thus attempt to discredit their account is not fair either, he has first hand testimony after all, much more than most of us I would hazard.
Who is accepting the SF "version of everything"? Just because people are sceptical about the claims of certain 'journalists' who ignore facts in order to mount attacks on SF doesn't not necessarily mean those same people are accepting what SF "say as gospel".
I made no mention of any 'journalists', I was more specifically referring to people like O'Rawe who had first hand accounts of what went on but they are quickly press ganged into a corner and shouted down because they dare to question the SF leadership viewpoint, it was not directed at you specifically but if you feel it was then so be it.
28 years on the hunger strikes are still an emotive issue in the 6 counties, i think Sinn Fein should come out and set their stall out as to what factually happened at the time because there seems to be a mounting whispering campaign to the effect that at least 5 brave men died needlessly,
having read the times article yesterday it seems intent on underminding adams,
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 10:30:02 AM
I think it is pretty naive to accept SF's version of everything as fact, too many in the community seem prepared to accept what they say as gospel. They are politicians don't forget! People like Rick O'Rawe have their own agenda too but to discount them as 'out of the loop' and thus attempt to discredit their account is not fair either, he has first hand testimony after all, much more than most of us I would hazard.
thats just it
sf have (had) nothing to do with the hunger strike as they were only created as a 'political party' around that time to try to get a political mandate from 'supporters/fellow sufferers and victims'.
orawe certainly played up his 'role' in all of this
he was removed from the hunger strikes as the ira army council were.
no one but the hunger strikers had any decision making ability.
orawe was some pr rep in long kesh but was not party to anything of the hunger strike - certainly not the second hunger strike.
so his 'info' and opinion is a long distance observation rather than being party to info.
my info is from many talks with the rep for the Lynch family (as I am a distant relation ...I know I know - we are all related round there) who said that the bit about the nio guy to me was him giving the response and he asked the other family reps present in the hs area of the jail (Doherty's & mcelwees) what they thought and they also told the nio guy he had to talk to the hs themseves which he wouldnt do as he knew the 'offering' was the same as before and they would reject it.
the nio and others kept trying to emotionally blackmail the hs families all the time to bring their lads off the strike. that was their dirty tactic.
some did but most others didnt.
yes Naka this is seemingly to undermint sf and adams - and sf have no control , input or mandate over the hs or the hunger strikers themselves so cannot make anything clear as they have no part of it and therefore cannot explain what they were not involved in.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 11:22:06 AM
I made no mention of any 'journalists', I was more specifically referring to people like O'Rawe who had first hand accounts of what went on but they are quickly press ganged into a corner and shouted down because they dare to question the SF leadership viewpoint, it was not directed at you specifically but if you feel it was then so be it.
But there you go again. No one is shouting O'Rawe down, indeed he did well out of his book as it was widely picked up upon by the same 'journalists' (Cusack, Clarke, Maloney, McDonald, Breen etc) but you can't get around the fact that his version directly conflicts with many many other first hand witnesses, some SF members, some not and most recently the MI5 officer involved in the negotiations. I'm often accused on this site as being a SF lackey despite never having been a member or having any association with that Party because some people on here can't accept there that being sceptical about every wild accusation that is thrown at SF by these people isn't the same as accepting everything SF "say as gospel". Maybe it's my long memory or training as a historian but these 'journalists' have never attempted to present and objective analysis based on the facts of a story even going back into the 70's and 80's, their modus operandi is more often to present an opinion based on deceit and often downright lies. I have no time for that or them.
Quote from: Donagh on April 06, 2009, 12:08:40 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 11:22:06 AM
I made no mention of any 'journalists', I was more specifically referring to people like O'Rawe who had first hand accounts of what went on but they are quickly press ganged into a corner and shouted down because they dare to question the SF leadership viewpoint, it was not directed at you specifically but if you feel it was then so be it.
But there you go again. No one is shouting O'Rawe down, indeed he did well out of his book as it was widely picked up upon by the same 'journalists' (Cusack, Clarke, Maloney, Breen etc) but you can't get around the fact that his version directly conflicts with many many other first hand witnesses, some SF members, some not and most recently the MI5 officer involved in the negotiations. I'm often accused on this site as being a SF lackey despite never having been a member or having any association with that Party because some people on here can't accept there that being sceptical about every wild accusation that is thrown at SF by these people isn't the same as accepting everything SF "say as gospel". Maybe it's my long memory or training as a historian but these 'journalists' have never attempted to present and objective analysis based on the facts of a story even going back into the 70's and 80's, their modus operandi is more often to present an opinion based on deceit and often downright lies. I have no time for that or them.
I'll shout orawe down
dont really care what he says about the sf leadership ,but the hs families were none too impressed and rejected his depiction of events in his book as fiction.
actually on the sf leadership its quite funny tht many are saying it (and adams) are too soft and are inbed too much with the gov, then theres others who are saying they are too millitant and hardline.
FFS :D
There's something smelly about recent articles published in the Times and other respected newspapers. You'd nearly thing someone somewhere thinks the time is right to feed any anti-Sinn Fein feelings there may be out there amongst republicans. There's no getting away from the fact that McGuinness's comments have angered a few of those who were wavering. In terms of strengthening the Unionist hand in any upcoming elections, this is the time to splinter the republican vote, especially those in the 18-25 bracket who have little or no experience of the 80s. The IRA's statement that they have 'lost control' in the Ardoyne is also a worry. Republican voters rarely float but I think some kind of acknowledgement of SF progress being made from the British Government is needed if they are serious about a resolution here.
Recent media feeds start to raise doubts as to whether the British are really serious about sorting the joint out once and for all. They're capable of the dirtiest of tricks when you least expect it.
Quote from: ONeill on April 06, 2009, 12:18:38 PM
There's something smelly about recent articles published in the Times and other respected newspapers. You'd nearly thing someone somewhere thinks the time is right to feed any anti-Sinn Fein feelings there may be out there amongst republicans. There's no getting away from the fact that McGuinness's comments have angered a few of those who were wavering. In terms of strengthening the Unionist hand in any upcoming elections, this is the time to splinter the republican vote, especially those in the 18-25 bracket who have little or no experience of the 80s. The IRA's statement that they have 'lost control' in the Ardoyne is also a worry. Republican voters rarely float but I think some kind of acknowledgement of SF progress being made from the British Government is needed if they are serious about a resolution here.
Recent media feeds start to raise doubts as to whether the British are really serious about sorting the joint out once and for all. They're capable of the dirtiest of tricks when you least expect it.
spot on
however its amazing how people will still fall for these dirty tricks - esp the media propaganda bulls**t
Quote from: Donagh on April 06, 2009, 12:08:40 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 11:22:06 AM
I made no mention of any 'journalists', I was more specifically referring to people like O'Rawe who had first hand accounts of what went on but they are quickly press ganged into a corner and shouted down because they dare to question the SF leadership viewpoint, it was not directed at you specifically but if you feel it was then so be it.
But there you go again. No one is shouting O'Rawe down, indeed he did well out of his book as it was widely picked up upon by the same 'journalists' (Cusack, Clarke, Maloney, McDonald, Breen etc) but you can't get around the fact that his version directly conflicts with many many other first hand witnesses, some SF members, some not and most recently the MI5 officer involved in the negotiations. I'm often accused on this site as being a SF lackey despite never having been a member or having any association with that Party because some people on here can't accept there that being sceptical about every wild accusation that is thrown at SF by these people isn't the same as accepting everything SF "say as gospel". Maybe it's my long memory or training as a historian but these 'journalists' have never attempted to present and objective analysis based on the facts of a story even going back into the 70's and 80's, their modus operandi is more often to present an opinion based on deceit and often downright lies. I have no time for that or them.
You mention 'journalists' again and not once have I quoted a 'journalist' back to you. IN MY OPINION (I don't care about Liam Clarke or Henry McDonald etc) people in SF have treated people like O'Rawe poorly and besmirched their character with subtle propaganda and character assasination. I make no bones about it and don't need it highlighted back to me but IN MY OPINION if people from within the Republican community have a point of view not aligned with mainstream republicanism then they are ostracised.
[/quote]
thats just it
sf have (had) nothing to do with the hunger strike as they were only created as a 'political party' around that time to try to get a political mandate from 'supporters/fellow sufferers and victims'.
[/quote]
I have picked this quote only LB as people have said before that SF used the strikes to further their political objectives and the longer they went on the more leverage they had, they realised the support was there in republican areas and the strikes galvanised that support and as a result the hunger strikes were the 'making' of SF.
The world and his wife know SF were closely linked to the Hunger Strikes and to say otherwise is folly.
yes Naka this is seemingly to undermint sf and adams - and sf have no control , input or mandate over the hs or the hunger strikers themselves so cannot make anything clear as they have no part of it and therefore cannot explain what they were not involved in.
[/quote]
I accept that SF weren`t around and my recollection is that carron was elected as "an anti h block candidate" but without being disengenuos the players at the time adams etc wouls have known the position with regard to the strkers, beresfords book mentions in detail voluminoue comms to adams etc, i just feel he should defend himself
i do fail to understand why these docs should be released at a dangerous time because for my own part( have never voted) know a fair few guys who fail to see what benefit sinnfein in government have been, getting the vote out will be a a hell of a lot more difficult than previous years
I see the natives are getting restless in Derry, idiotic attacks by a bunch of neanderthals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/7985580.stm
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 12:23:07 PM
I have picked this quote only LB as people have said before that SF used the strikes to further their political objectives and the longer they went on the more leverage they had, they realised the support was there in republican areas and the strikes galvanised that support and as a result the hunger strikes were the 'making' of SF.
The world and his wife know SF were closely linked to the Hunger Strikes and to say otherwise is folly.
completely disagree Doogie - see the post above by Naka - owen carron stood on the 'anti h-block' moniker - sf were not really set up at that stage.
I will agree that AFTER this sf used the HS as the engine to create their political party and their rise etc.
adams was the policital voice of the republicans at the time so you could argue that he could 'defend' himself right now, but as mentioned before - he or anyone else were not party to most of that stuff going on.
sf were effectively bourne out of the hunger strikes but thats AFTER the hs, and not closely linked as normal meaning would have it. Closely linked as in that republicans and nationalists then gave support to the emerging sf.
thats the only link.
Quote from: naka on April 06, 2009, 12:37:40 PM
yes Naka this is seemingly to undermint sf and adams - and sf have no control , input or mandate over the hs or the hunger strikers themselves so cannot make anything clear as they have no part of it and therefore cannot explain what they were not involved in.
I accept that SF weren`t around and my recollection is that carron was elected as "an anti h block candidate" but without being disengenuos the players at the time adams etc wouls have known the position with regard to the strkers, beresfords book mentions in detail voluminoue comms to adams etc, i just feel he should defend himself
i do fail to understand why these docs should be released at a dangerous time because for my own part( have never voted) know a fair few guys who fail to see what benefit sinnfein in government have been, getting the vote out will be a a hell of a lot more difficult than previous years
[/quote]
yep , I understand now what you are saying.
as I said just there above, Adams was the spokesmen.
However he had no role in the politics and negotiations of the HS so does not have anything to answer for.
I have pointed out in my first post in the prev page where these allegations etc are all false and that there was no offer on the plate for hunger strikers at that stage, therefore was nothing to hide from the prisoners.
I'd think that the hunger strikersm their families and their representatives would be the people with the knowledge of what went on here, esp when you hear that the nio men (english) were in telling the families what was on 'offer' and it was the same as before.
As for the freedom of info - well thats the clause, it has to be made public after a certain time. Its a bit risky timing, but I think that plays into the anti republicans hands right now (unionist politicians, brit army, psni and dissident idiots)
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 12:44:55 PM
I see the natives are getting restless in Derry, idiotic attacks by a bunch of neanderthals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/7985580.stm
I havent read the link , but have been saying on here for quite a while that theres problems in Derry city and the dissidents are drumming up a lot of support on the back of the local police intransigence.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 06, 2009, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 12:23:07 PM
I have picked this quote only LB as people have said before that SF used the strikes to further their political objectives and the longer they went on the more leverage they had, they realised the support was there in republican areas and the strikes galvanised that support and as a result the hunger strikes were the 'making' of SF.
The world and his wife know SF were closely linked to the Hunger Strikes and to say otherwise is folly.
completely disagree Doogie - see the post above by Naka - owen carron stood on the 'anti h-block' moniker - sf were not really set up at that stage.
I will agree that AFTER this sf used the HS as the engine to create their political party and their rise etc.
adams was the policital voice of the republicans at the time so you could argue that he could 'defend' himself right now, but as mentioned before - he or anyone else were not party to most of that stuff going on.
sf were effectively bourne out of the hunger strikes but thats AFTER the hs, and not closely linked as normal meaning would have it. Closely linked as in that republicans and nationalists then gave support to the emerging sf.
thats the only link.
Again LB people will argue that Carron stood as an anti H-Block candidate in order to garner more nationalist support - i.e. voters who objected to armed struggle could appease their conscience by saying they were voting against conditions in Long kesh and argue they were not voting for SF. If he or indeed Bobby Sands had stood on a SF ticket they would prob have not got elected in that constituency.
I can agree that the strikes made SF as a political entity in the 6 counties but I also do think they were closely involved in their strategy (the strikes) also.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 12:23:07 PM
You mention 'journalists' again and not once have I quoted a 'journalist' back to you. IN MY OPINION (I don't care about Liam Clarke or Henry McDonald etc) people in SF have treated people like O'Rawe poorly and besmirched their character with subtle propaganda and character assasination. I make no bones about it and don't need it highlighted back to me but IN MY OPINION if people from within the Republican community have a point of view not aligned with mainstream republicanism then they are ostracised.
The claim that there was a planned strategy, capitalising, even based, on, the willingness of the prisoners to die
just doesn't hold water regardless of the way SF political strategy eventually worked out.
Maybe there are just a long list of very good reasons why Rawe's opinions are dismissed.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 12:59:30 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 06, 2009, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on April 06, 2009, 12:23:07 PM
I have picked this quote only LB as people have said before that SF used the strikes to further their political objectives and the longer they went on the more leverage they had, they realised the support was there in republican areas and the strikes galvanised that support and as a result the hunger strikes were the 'making' of SF.
The world and his wife know SF were closely linked to the Hunger Strikes and to say otherwise is folly.
completely disagree Doogie - see the post above by Naka - owen carron stood on the 'anti h-block' moniker - sf were not really set up at that stage.
I will agree that AFTER this sf used the HS as the engine to create their political party and their rise etc.
adams was the policital voice of the republicans at the time so you could argue that he could 'defend' himself right now, but as mentioned before - he or anyone else were not party to most of that stuff going on.
sf were effectively bourne out of the hunger strikes but thats AFTER the hs, and not closely linked as normal meaning would have it. Closely linked as in that republicans and nationalists then gave support to the emerging sf.
thats the only link.
Again LB people will argue that Carron stood as an anti H-Block candidate in order to garner more nationalist support - i.e. voters who objected to armed struggle could appease their conscience by saying they were voting against conditions in Long kesh and argue they were not voting for SF. If he or indeed Bobby Sands had stood on a SF ticket they would prob have not got elected in that constituency.
I can agree that the strikes made SF as a political entity in the 6 counties but I also do think they were closely involved in their strategy (the strikes) also.
Doogie - th first part of that is based on a big IF
sf didnt exist then
also I can tell you now that sf had NO part to play in any 'strategy ' of the hunger strike , partially because they didnt exist, and secondly as there was no one else involved in the 'stratgy' apart from the hunger strikers themselves, the ira army council and also the folks that went on to start sf - none of these wanted the hs to go ahead.
none of them had any input into the hs and as to who went on them.
I know the media have distorted this but I can tel lyou thats from near enough the horses mouth as you can get.