Ó Brádaigh - Hunger Strikers Were Not Sacrificed for Political Gain

[Katayusha]

I am surmising what may have happened.

Your post imlies that it is your opinion that the 'Kitchen Cabinet' decided to reject a deal, which was essentially what they got after the families intervened, because they were being denied the propaganda value of public acknowledgement. Said public acknowledgement was more important than men's lives, according to your assesment. I don't see how this would help the PSF position in regard to this debate.

[picador]

I don't know how you got that implication from my post which started "Clearly Ó Brádaigh knows enough about what was going on to be able to speak with such clarity." A decision about whether to do a deal with the British government and call off the hunger strike would be one for the Army Council. I have said already on this thread that I had been coming round to the electoral sacrifice theory (which I also said Ó Brádaigh had blown out of the water). I don't believe the Sinn Féin version of events. I think they have something to hide. It would hardly be the first time.

I have no idea why you continue to misrepresent my posts. It is immensely frustrating. You make Gerry Adams seem like an honest man.

[Katayusha]

Painfully dishonest backpeddling above. Here's what you said:

It seems plausible that the British were willing to do a deal but with the proviso that the deal's existence would be deniable. The Republican Movement were not willing to accept this and so the deal collapsed.

An offer was made, of that there is no doubt. You are suggesting that it was rejected because the British would not go public; thus it was a propaganda issue, in your opinion.

[merle haggard]

In a recent interview with the Irish News out-going RSF President Ruairí Ó Brádaigh refutes the suggestion that the lives of six of the 1981 hunger strikers were sacrificed for electoral gain. Ó Brádaigh, who was both President of Sinn Féin and a member of the IRA Army council at the time decribes northern opposition to involvement in the June 1981 southern election that saw two prisoners, Kieran Doherrty and Paddy Agnew elected to the Dáil. It is Ó Brádaigh's view that British dirty tricks were responsible for the prolongation of the protest. Ó Brádaigh's intervention in the on-going debate about a supposed deal that might have saved the lives of the men is significant given his longstanding enmity with Gerry Adams, Danny Morrison et al.

H/T nuzhound.com

this is the Irish News spinning the facts in my opinion , i note too the convenient " staff reporter" tagline rather than any named journalist putting the case which is always extremely suspicious. OBradaigh is echoing what he has already said previously . That the sinn fein leadership - he was president , Daithi OConaill vice presidnt were not aware of any such deal and were not enaged in any deals . The sinn fein leadership and the IRA leadership were not aware of any deal or engaged in one and therefore didnt reject one .
however there was most definitely an offer made , but to whom.

which means simply that if individuals were involved in deals they were involved solely as individuals and without the authority of the republican movement . Which is precisely what Ruairi OBradaigh said on the issue when it first broke . He isnt saying anything different here a couple of years on . It seems only to have been spun differently by an Irish news reporter .

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

So you are saying that propaganda management was deemed more important than men's lives?

think theres a matter of verifing it as well. theres add on's to this argument about motivation for refuseing it, that adams saw 20 years ahead and where we are now and why he'd do that. but theres also more basic motivation. what was the value of a gaurntee in private how could it be held to account. at the time the brits appear to have always attempted to have at least two sets of negotiations on the go at the same time. first the irish commission then when they pulled out the red cross at the same time as the back channel. there bottom line dosent appear to be consistent. the irish times for its anniversery achived all its old news reports. when this come out first looked it up, interesting reading them and comparing them to duddy and o rawe. worth a look.

[Katayusha]

think theres a matter of verifing it as well.
.

There is a very comprehensive and informative archive of this debate here

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

sorry i ment public verification at the time. i accept something was put forward. i don't think a back channel was used to talk about the weather. but say i can promise you something in private on my word. and if i deliver well its up to me. if its done publicly and if i don't do it then i loose my word.

[Katayusha]

sorry i ment public verification at the time. i accept something was put forward. i don't think a back channel was used to talk about the weather. but say i can promise you something in private on my word. and if i deliver well its up to me. if its done publicly and if i don't do it then i loose my word.

The proven facts of the matter are that an offer was made which was essentially the same as the reforms the Brits implimented after the families brought about the end of the hunger strike. Knowledge of this offer and indeed of the negotiations was strictly controlled within a select few who made the decisions on their own. Representatives of this select few initially denied that any offer had been made and pillioried those who stated otherwise. They have since had to change their stories. It has got to the point where AP/RN have been issuing apologies to the Irish News over published falsehoods concerning the hunger strike.

[ON THE ONE ROAD]

i thought bik dispuited the offer claim first but it was along the lines of what constituted an offer. morrision didn't.

in the emidiet after math of the stike did the prosioners view there situation as a victory. from personaly talking to people my understanding was that they didn't. though that could be relitive.

from duddy was the sticking point that the brits wouldn't send someone into the prisions to verify it. doesn't seem un reasonable to me, personaly.

no aprn apologised over saying that the irish news didn't give adams the right of repy. different.

[Katayusha]

i thought bik dispuited the offer claim first but it was along the lines of what constituted an offer. morrision didn't.

in the emidiet after math of the stike did the prosioners view there situation as a victory. from personaly talking to people my understanding was that they didn't. though that could be relitive.

from duddy was the sticking point that the brits wouldn't send someone into the prisions to verify it. doesn't seem un reasonable to me, personaly.

no aprn apologised over saying that the irish news didn't give adams the right of repy. different.

Brendan Mc Farland initially claimed that O Rawe was lying and had to climbdown, no two ways about it.

Ap/RN published a number of claims about the IN that were not repeated in the revised edition of Adams' article, subsequent to the apology.