The facts of the hunger strikes have already been established

[Katayusha Mk2]

Well said, tout or not, its only the Mi5 led effort to redeem Thatcher in the eyes of the world that will gain anything from this,
When she dies, the world will once again be reminded of her role in the hunger strikes and the next brit Gov. (Conservatives) won't want the bad publicity just as it starts its tenure.

Oh I see, it's all about a Brit-driven effort to rehabilitate Thatcher. Are you out of your mind? She callously allowed 4 hunger strikers to die before there was any deal offered and then allowed 6 more to die because she wouldn't budge on what was in that offer.

But an offer was made, that much we know, and it wasn't acted upon. The hunger strikers weren't told about it, neither were their families or a significant portion of the IRA leadership; as a result of this 6 hunger strikers died for no further gain than was offered prior to the death of Joe McDonnell, who like Mickey Devine the last to die was a man with children.

This brings us to your motivation, which is so foolishly exposed in your encouragement of the cretinous dark angel. Your motivation in the maintanence of the cover up is the obverse of what you claim; rather than some spurious fear about the 'rehabilitation of Thatcher' you fear the exposure and question of your own leadership's actions.

You are as dishonest and lacking in credibilty as your 'comrade' the dark angel. Why do you fear the truth so much?

[the dark angel]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Awk ok then KatayuselessMI5tout your right, Maggie Thatcher (your hero) was a good aul soul at heart, and the IRA leaders were all terrible people who murdered their own.comrades. Poor aul Maggie has sleepless nights even yet about the IRA letting the hungerstrikers die. If only she'd went public with her offer in 1981, all them young men would have been saved from themselves and their terrible evil leaders!
Of course the leaders were all touts anyway, that's why they almost blow her and her government up in Brighton in 1984!!

[eyeswideopen]

Whether or not to stand in elections or take part in Institutions of government is surely a tactical issue? The real issue is whether the party retains, or does not retain, an independent political strategy that can deliver on its stated goals.

[Katayusha Mk2]

Whether or not to stand in elections or take part in Institutions of government is surely a tactical issue? The real issue is whether the party retains, or does not retain, an independent political strategy that can deliver on its stated goals.

Not following you here EWO, this post seems a little incongruous to this thread.

[eyeswideopen]

Not following you here EWO, this post seems a little incongruous to this thread.

Apologies. I'm trying to follow this, without much prior knowledge. The hunger strikes bought Provisional SF, and Irish Nationalism, a lot of support at a terrible price. Someone brought the issue of abstentionism into the discussion and related the protraction of the hunger strike to McGuinness and Adams support for an end to abstentionism. Perhaps I should go away and read a book before I post again. Is there anything you would recommend ?

[Katayusha Mk2]

Is it possible that there were divisions and mixed messages from the British on this? Thatcher certainly relished her tough image and I'm sure wanted the hunger strikers dead.

It's certainly possible, it is very possible that the British had penetrated the decision making process; particularly if Denis Donaldson was involved. This would have enabled them to make the offer but lobby against acceptance at the same time.

Four of the five demands were on offer and the prison leadership had accepted the offer; however, they were over-ruled by those responsible for the decisions. In hindsight the wrong tactical decision was taken and it cost six men their lives. As opposed to acknowledging this, those who took the decisions chose to cover it up and persist in the cover up to this day.

I heard Martin McGuinness say to Eamon Dunphy on RTE Radio that he had talked to the British without authorisation from early on. The British never talked to anyone without playing them and manipulating them one way or another. it is astounding to think after that that he could be trusted in any way. The whole thing is very messy.

Particularly considering that he was negotiating with British intelligence.

Ultimately a lot of men died and both Thatcher and the SF leadership appear to have been strengthened out of it in some ways.

It could be said that the hunger strike ultimately brought PSF closer to the British to become the agents of normalisation that they are today.

[Katayusha Mk2]

Apologies. I'm trying to follow this, without much prior knowledge. The hunger strikes bought Provisional SF, and Irish Nationalism, a lot of support at a terrible price. Someone brought the issue of abstentionism into the discussion and related the protraction of the hunger strike to McGuinness and Adams support for an end to abstentionism. Perhaps I should go away and read a book before I post again. Is there anything you would recommend ?

No apologies necessary. I would recommend 'Ten Men Dead' by David Beresford, which is an excellent account although we now know that it lacks the key details of the Mountain Climber initiative, and 'Blanketmen' by Richard O Rawe, which has helped fill in some of the missing detail.

[picador]

You can drop the PSF stuff. Even the Stickies weren't claiming to be Sinn Féin at that time.

[Katayusha Mk2]

Good wo/man, Picador; another stellar and relevant contribution.

[minstrelboy]

Don't you think that Thatcher and her Tories would have not revelled in exposing the republican leaders to their supporters and would have been cleared ,in the eyes of the world for their role in the hunger-strikes.

Even accepting that some of the leadership were compromised by the brits, they could have finished off republicanism.

[COLOR="Red"]The provos war escalated after the hunger strikes [/COLOR]and the level of support surged for SF and the IRA, and they nearly got the b1tch in '84. so they did;nt have them under as much control as you infer.

No it didn't.