Question about the Hunger Strikers

[carribbear]

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.

[Donagh]

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.

[lynchbhoy]

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...

[lynchbhoy]

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

[Main Street]

And there I thought Tony was the real thing .

[Doogie Browser]

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.

[Donagh]

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".

[Doogie Browser]

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.

[naka]

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,

 

[lynchbhoy]

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.

[Donagh]

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.   

[lynchbhoy]

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 

[ONeill]

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.

[lynchbhoy]

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

[Doogie Browser]

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.