The facts of the hunger strikes have already been established

[Katayusha Mk2]

And it's just a complete coincidence that you're implacably opposed to the peace process!

And in the latest desperate twist you attempt to personalise the debate.

It's not about me, or you, unless of course you were in Long Kesh or party to the negotiations; I was only a child at the time. I don't oppose peace, I oppose British rule in Ireland; the two concepts are mutually exclusive. My opinions in regards to the GFA have no bearing on the sequence of events from July 1981. The past has already happened, try as you might to conceal it.

[picador]

I was merely sneering at your quest for truth, governed as it is by the overriding need to discount anything that doesn't fit neatly into the smear agenda, such as Ruairí Ó Brádaigh's categoric assertion that the hunger strike was not extended for electoral purposes. And no, the fact he was unaware of the so-called July offer at the time does not undermine that assertion beacuse Ó Brádaigh would have been aware of the O'Rawe's allegations long before giving the interview.

[Katayusha Mk2]

I was merely sneering at your quest for truth, governed as it is by the overriding need to discount anything that doesn't fit neatly into the smear agenda, such as Ruairí Ó Brádaigh's categoric assertion that the hunger strike was not extended for electoral purposes.

Go ahead and provide any instance where I have suggested that the hunger strike was extended for electoral purposes. Indeed I posted a letter from Gerry Foster on this thread which rejects that strawman.

And no, the fact he was unaware of the so-called July offer at the time does not undermine that assertion beacuse Ó Brádaigh would have been aware of the O'Rawe's allegations long before giving the interview.

This is meaningless and has no bearing on the post July 1981 cover up.

[Catalpa]

There is the issue of direct negotiations with the hunger strikers; 'talking to terrorists' as they would have put it and of course the protocols put in place by the element of the Republican leadership handling negotiations. The Brits did make the offer and they also told Garret Fitzgerald about it. The offer was the same as the reforms that accompanied the end of the strike.

The 'bone of contention' as you put it is that the knowledge of the negotiations and offer was limited to a select few and withheld from elements of the Republican leadership, the hunger strikers and their families. There has been a cover up of this ever since.

the protocols put in place by the element of the Republican leadership handling negotiations

Your not seriously suggesting that Her Majesty's Government bound themselves to abide by rules laid down by the Republican Leadership ( ie Gerry Adams & Co) as to how to bring about an end to this Hunger Strike in one of their own Prison Camps ?

There was absolutely nothing in the way of a British Official going into the Hospital Wing and giving each of the men a copy of the proposals and so putting it to them directly where they wanted to go from there.

Why didn't they?

[Katayusha Mk2]

the protocols put in place by the element of the Republican leadership handling negotiations

Your not seriously suggesting that Her Majesty's Government bound themselves to abide by rules laid down by the Republican Leadership ( ie Gerry Adams & Co) as to how to bring about an end to this Hunger Strike in one of their own Prison Camps ?

There was absolutely nothing in the way of a British Official going into the Hospital Wing and giving each of the men a copy of the proposals and so putting it to them directly where they wanted to go from there.

Why didn't they?

You would have to ask the Brits that, just like you could ask the PSF leadership why they didn't do the same. But they aren't answering any questions on this issue.

[picador]

Go ahead and provide any instance where I have suggested that the hunger strike was extended for electoral purposes. Indeed I posted a letter from Gerry Foster on this thread which rejects that strawman.

You posted an article verbatim - 'We got nothing'. It suggested precisely that.

[Katayusha Mk2]

You posted an article verbatim - 'We got nothing'. It suggested precisely that.

That was Dixie Elliot's opinion. I asked you to provide evidence of where I have stated that as my opinion. Massive and characteristic fail.

[eyeswideopen]

Go ahead and provide any instance where I have suggested that the hunger strike was extended for electoral purposes. Indeed I posted a letter from Gerry Foster on this thread which rejects that strawman.



This is meaningless and has no bearing on the post July 1981 cover up.

So, just to clarify, what do you think the reasons were that the SF leadership might have extended the hunger strike deliberately?

[Katayusha Mk2]

So, just to clarify, what do you think the reasons were that the SF leadership might have extended the hunger strike deliberately?

The answer eyeswideopen is that I have no idea which is why I support the call for an inquiry as the only people who can answer that question are those who prolonged the hunger strike. Of that - that the hunger strike was prolonged - there is no doubt; but as to why?
It can only be speculated at this point

[eyeswideopen]

Why an enquiry into this ? Why not an enquiry into Martin McGuinness, who says he had unauthorised communications with the British from early on ?
Why not an enquiry into the debriefing of Denis Donaldson, and what came out of it ?