Korean Job Discussion Forums

[philipjames]

Today is the 25th anniversary of the death of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. What do you think? Was that guy a terrorist thug or a genuine freedom fighter? Let's have some opinions here. What defines a terrorist?

[eamo]

Huge questions there!!
Not easily answered and totally depending on whose side you sympathise with.

IMO Bobby Sands was a man with strong principles. He himself would never have condoned or wittingly carried out attacks which would have resulted in the certain death of civilians. In that regard, he wasn't a terrorist. Not in the way that Osama Bin Laden fully believes the death of innocents (9/11) is worth it if the objectives are achieved.

However, if you don't believe in the cause of a united Ireland then you probably see Bobby Sands and the IRA as out-and-out troublemakers, murderers and terrorists.

There's so much more to this but I'm not the one to write about it. I'll find some good links to articles and post them later.

[jaganath69]

Now I feel old, I remember telling Bobby Sands Jokes at school.

[philipjames]

Here are my observations.
1. Bobby Sands and the IRA were attempting to overthrow a democratic government by violence. That's terrorism.
2. A large majority of people in Northern Ireland wished to remain within the United Kingdom. To subvert that will is terrorism.
3. Bobby Sands and his colleagues were imprisoned for grievous acts of violence, including the bombing of pubs in which countless civilians were killed. (The IRA, besides the countless Protestants it murdered, was responsible for 450 Catholic civilian deaths.) That's terrorism.
4. Neither the UN or EU accepted the hunger strikers' demand for political status. Again, they were using violence to seek political change in a democratic society. Terrorism.
5. Bobby Sands and his colleagues knew that their deaths would result in countless deaths on the streets of Northern Ireland. Sixty-five people died during the IRA hunger strike, many of them civilians caught up in the violence. Terrorism.
6. 'Martyrdom' cannot be self-imposed. They were free to chose their own fate. The IRA never granted this right to its victims.

[Satori]

However, of all the famous groups in the world that have been labelled terrorists, the IRA proved it's self to be the most sophisticated and willing to negotiate.

[Wangja]

[philipjames]

They only negotiated because they were beaten. The entire organization was infiltrated from top to bottom. Even the dude responsible for searching out British agents in the IRA was a British agent. September 11th put the kibosh on any attempt to return to terrorism, or even threaten to return to terrorism. They were a beaten organization.

On this anniversary we should stop and think not of Bobby Sands, but the victims of IRA terrorism and the efforts of the Northern Ireland police and British Army to bring the IRA to its knees. It is their sacrifices (more than 1000 members of the security forces died in the campaign against terrorism in Northern Ireland) that brought about the peace process. As for Bobby Sands. He can rot.

[funkywinkerbeans]

Philip James

I would discuss this issue, but you would get all angry, storm off this site, and there's no pool table with your name on it to call you back.

[skinhead]

[Neil]

It may not have been his intention but you could make a case that Sand's by election victory showed the support for the hunger strikers amongst nationalists and inspired Sinn Fein to get more involved in party politics, which led to the good Friday agreement.

[rapier]

Incredibly risky subject to post about.

[Jeju Rocks]

Only fat people should be allowed to go on a hunger strike.

[Leslie Cheswyck]

[crystal]

i agree with rapier in that irish history is way too complex to simply one side wrong and one side right, the origins of the conflict go way back in time, there had been almost a thousand years of english ruling ireland, killing irish to maintain order, letting irish die during famine times and so on and so on.

the ira felt they had a cause and were doing what they believed they had to in order to achieve their goals seeing as political negotiations were what conceded the north to britain.

personally, while i would like to be part of and see a united ireland, i do not feel that violence is ever a justifiable means to an end, in no way is it ok to kill people so that you can get what you want, be they civilians or soldiers

[philipjames]

No doubt about it. I should have waited for more discussion before stating my position. Having said that, there is no question that the IRA was a terrorist organization. The civil rights movement had several legitimate demands. Every one of their demands, however, were met by 1970, before the IRA even went into action. All of its indiscriminate pub bombings, car bombs, sectarian muders, killings of off-duty policemen in front of their childen, all occured after the civil rights movements' just demands had been realized.

Contrary to what rapier says, the IRA were not fighting against injustice. They were fighting a sectarian and racist war to deny the Northern Ireland majority the right to self-determination.

Also, going back 800 years to find justification for the IRA's campaign is ludicrous. Who wasn't oppressed back then?

Anyway, let's not turn ten sectarian murderers into martyrs. Just because they believed in their cause doesn't make them heroic. The 9/11 terrorists also believed in their cause, and showed a willingness to die for it.

Cheers
Jameson