"We got nothing" by Thomas 'Dixie' Elliott

[Katayusha Mk2]

It all comes down to whether the people conducting the negotiations as they stood on 5 July 1981 on behalf of the Hunger Strikers took the British Government at their word.

Given their past actions in this Country I would say they had a right to be sceptical and to proceed with caution.

Anyone who thinks Mrs Thatcher wasn't out to wrong foot the Republican Movement and exact maximum advantage to the United Kingdom and maximum damage on Sinn Fein and the Anti H Block Movement would be most naive.

Divide et Impera [Divide and Rule] is after all a tactic favoured by Empires on the way up as well as on the way down. Putting a tantalising offer to a group of desperate and hungry men that was up in the air and open to interpretation was fraught with difficulty for those charged with the conveyance of offers.

Maybe the Irish negotiators did call it wrong, maybe with hindsight that would have been the best thing to do – but if that is so then they would have to have been more than human to foretell the way the sands would shift in that fateful Summer of 1981.

My recollection of that time was that there were ‘wheels within wheels within wheels’ doing the rounds and all was in a state of confusion and chaos. With hindsight of course we can piece it all together (more or less!) and divide into segments but at the time it sure didn’t seem that way.

A 'Deal' after all is something both sides agree to not just one side. In effect the British Government were asking Irish Republicans doing the negotiations and to take them at their word and then go to the Hunger Strikers and ‘sell’ the British offer to them.

Going the men on Hunger Strike and then selling them a dummy is not a position any person charged with such great responsibility would have liked to be in.

What would you have done?

Catalpa, the fact remains that the British implemented everything that was on offer in July 1981 as soon as the hunger strike ended. They could have done so a lot earlier and saved many lives but they inhumanely decided to call Adams' bluff who in turn inhumanely called their bluff.

In hindsight Adams made the wrong decision but that is not what is most damning. Ever since the hunger strike the PSF leadership has been engaged in a cover up and they have attempted to lie, blacken and manipulate to maintain the cover up. They could have admittted to the tactical error but chose to lie about events instead.

I would like to think that placed in the position of responsibility over men's prolongued and agonising deaths that I would have acted with honesty, compassion and humanity. This didn't happen then and it isn't happening now.

[the dark angel]

KatayuselessMI5tout you're are card. You're a Brit tout, which has been proven, and yet you keep this bullsh*t up. Have you no shame?

[picador]

You would have no problem then with overseeing death by starvation, 'they signed up so they're fair game' sort of attitude?

The pressure for the hunger strike came from within the prison not outside. The whole republican movement was mobilised behind it and a substantial section of the Irish people as well. The outcome of the hunger strike had repercussions far beyond the prison gate.

The first hunger strike ended in fiasco. Why were prisoners on hunger strike if ultimately they were not prepared to die? Such a protest needs leaders who have the capacity and determination to be detached and ruthless. So it was on the second hunger strike. Who's to say the five demands wouldn't have been achieved if Fr Faul hadn't got some of the families to intervene?

Ultimately hunger strike is an immoral way to wage war.

[Catalpa]

The pressure for the hunger strike came from within the prison not outside. The whole republican movement was mobilised behind it and a substantial section of the Irish people as well. The outcome of the hunger strike had repercussions far beyond the prison gate.

The first hunger strike ended in fiasco. Why were prisoners on hunger strike if ultimately they were not prepared to die? Such a protest needs leaders who have the capacity and determination to be detached and ruthless. So it was on the second hunger strike. Who's to say the five demands wouldn't have been achieved if Fr Faul hadn't got some of the families to intervene?

Ultimately hunger strike is an immoral way to wage war.

Ultimately hunger strike is an immoral way to wage war.

Why so?

[the_beat]

KatayuselessMI5tout you're are card. You're a Brit tout, which has been proven, and yet you keep this bullsh*t up. Have you no shame?

Some trolls are,dare I say it, witty and imaginative.
You are boringly repetitive.
You are now on my ignore list until you brush up on your trolling skills.

[picador]

Ultimately hunger strike is an immoral way to wage war.

Why so?

Due to the nature of the decisions that have to be taken by the commanders - lives horribly sacrificed versus strategic aims.

[Katayusha Mk2]

The first hunger strike ended in fiasco. Why were prisoners on hunger strike if ultimately they were not prepared to die? Such a protest needs leaders who have the capacity and determination to be detached and ruthless. So it was on the second hunger strike.

Who are you to say that the men on the first hunger strike, such as Tommy McKearney were not prepared to die?

The first hunger strike ended because Brendan Hughes was not prepared to let men die. What you are implying here is that future decisions in regard to the lives of hunger strikers were placed in the hands of more 'ruthless' and 'detached' individuals. These would be the people who made the decisions in regard to the Mountain Climber offer in July. All decisions were effectively taken out of the hands of the prisoners, according to your logic.

Who's to say the five demands wouldn't have been achieved if Fr Faul hadn't got some of the families to intervene?

The 'Faul back' argument; blame Denis The Menace.

Thatcher would probably have let men die for as long as Adams could find men to volunteer. He would eventually have run out of volunteers and the Brits would likely have done what they did historically.

Do you think what Denis Faul did was wrong?

Ultimately hunger strike is an immoral way to wage war.

Why then are you so blatantly and counter-productively attempting to justify the actions of those who were responsible for the leadership decisions of the second hungerstrike?

[the dark angel]

Who are you to say that the men on the first hunger strike, such as Tommy McKearney were not prepared to die?

The first hunger strike ended because Brendan Hughes was not prepared to let men die. What you are implying here is that future decisions in regard to the lives of hunger strikers were placed in the hands of more 'ruthless' and 'detached' individuals. These would be the people who made the decisions in regard to the Mountain Climber offer in July. All decisions were effectively taken out of the hands of the prisoners, according to your logic.



[SIZE="2"]The 'Faul back' argument; blame Denis The Menace[/SIZE].

Thatcher would probably have let men die for as long as Adams could find men to volunteer. He would eventually have run out of volunteers and the Brits would likely have done what they did historically.

Do you think what Denis Faul did was wrong?



Why then are you so blatantly and counter-productively attempting to justify the actions of those who were responsible for the leadership decisions of the second hungerstrike?

There you go again.
I see you never blame your pay master!!!! Poor aul Maggie Thatcher. God love her, such a kind woman.

[the dark angel]

Some trolls are,dare I say it, witty and imaginative.
You are boringly repetitive.
You are now on my ignore list until you brush up on your trolling skills.

Awk now, I'm so sorry for not falling for your Brit propaganda.

[picador]

Who are you to say that the men on the first hunger strike, such as Tommy McKearney were not prepared to die?

The first hunger strike ended because Brendan Hughes was not prepared to let men die.

The reason Hughes gave for calling off the first hunger strike was that he had promised Sean McKenna that he would not allow him to die. So it's not a matter of what I said, it's a matter of what Brendan Hughes said.

What you are implying here is that future decisions in regard to the lives of hunger strikers were placed in the hands of more 'ruthless' and 'detached' individuals. These would be the people who made the decisions in regard to the Mountain Climber offer in July. All decisions were effectively taken out of the hands of the prisoners, according to your logic.

Brendan McFarlane was O/C. Ultimately it was his call. The evidence shows he was in regular contact with elements of the leadership without the prison.
Just beacuse O'Rawe had a discussion with McFarlane it doesnt follow that McFarlane held to his initial view.

That McFarlane is both ruthless and determined can be seen from his actions both prior to and subsequent to his imprisonment.

The 'Faul back' argument; blame Denis The Menace.

Thatcher would probably have let men die for as long as Adams could find men to volunteer. He would eventually have run out of volunteers and the Brits would likely have done what they did historically.

Do you think what Denis Faul did was wrong?

Father Faul did what was right. Some of the hunger strikers' families followed his advice. Some didn't. Ultimately it was the decisions of those who did that brought the hunger strike to an end.

Why then are you so blatantly and counter-productively attempting to justify the actions of those who were responsible for the leadership decisions of the second hungerstrike?

It was the prisoners who demanded both hunger-strikes. Those who volunteered to be part of the second hunger strike can have been under no illusions about what they were letting themselves in for.

Now let those who died rest in peace.