MovieChat Forums > Hunger (2008) Discussion > Was Sands a Terrorist?

Was Sands a Terrorist?


I haven't seen this film, but he was a member of the IRA, correct? And wasn't he suspected in a terrorist bombing a short while before his arrest? I'm not trying to troll here-- this is an honest question. Please no hateful rhetoric. Thanks.

reply

"Sigh"... Google's your friend...

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

There are conflicting accounts online and I just wanted someone's opinion. A**hole.

reply

Dear Sir, the "someone's opinion" would be just one another conflicting account, by definition. To learn about the facts that Wikipedia provides you generously with - is the best way to learn about this Conflict.

And please, don't be that sensitive about nothing. So many people died in this Conflict... and you do swear with no reason.

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

"So many people died in this Conflict... and you do swear with no reason. "
Exactly what correlation do those two things have to each other? And you don't need to be so condescending. I thought that people on IMDB were generally more articulate than the apes on Yahoo Answers.

reply

[deleted]

Nice, you call me a*hole, and, at the same time, you do complaint on me being "condescending" ;-)... but anyway, sorry for disappointing you not being more articulate than the apes on Yahoo Answers ;-)))).

Well, what did you learn about Bobby Sands, for now?

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

We will never know exactly what he did specifically- evidence and judicial process surrounding him is sketchy. As a member and leader in the IRA yes, he was in the strictest sense of the word. However, try to relinquish the negative connotations of the word- terrorism is just a political method- one which has bee used legitimately by states and non state actors for years (see half the wars the US has ever been involved in, including their revolution) . Other factors like legitimacy, ethics and the nature of targets (but most of all, who is watching) will determine whether or not you should hold it against him.
The idea of non-state actors committing political violence is one of the more grey areas in the discourse of political philosophy. The victim will characterise the attacks as cowardly and immoral. The actor will identify it as a legitimate, necessary resistance. To put it in perspective, the Death Star attack in star wars was a terrorist strike (no, civilian targets are not a prerequisite- look at Nidel Malak Hussan) One man's Bin Laden is another's Han Solo.
Regardless, a states continual determination to avoid acknowledged a political cause is fundamentally wrong.

reply

One man's Bin Laden is another's Han Solo.

Bravo  And, since history is always written by the winners, which of the two will prevail upon people's opinion directly depends on who won the war (or "war"). If the United States had lost in the war against the British history would have labeled the Americans as terrorists. They won however, so they are regarded as "freedom fighters". The same would apply to the IRA if they had managed to kick out the British from Ireland, the only differences are scale and context, nothing more.

So, to go back to the OP's original question I think the best answer would be "It depends on who's asking".

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It all depended on which side of the conflict you were on...



Ah, jeez, man. I shot Marvin in the face.

reply

Very well said.

reply

After the bombing,
a gun battle with the RUC
Leaving behind two of their wounded friends,
Sands, Joe McDonnell, Seamus Finucane, and Sean Lavery tried to escape in a car
Sands was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment in Long Kesh


leaving behind ? ?


that's funny

reply

He was one of a team of IRA men who placed bombs in the Balmoral Furnishings shop, in an industrial centre in Dunmurry, outside Belfast. The shop had not been paying their protection money. Only access to the shop was by running past Dunmurry RUC centre - which was problematic since the RUC men on the gate noticed and gave chase. The terrorists and the police exchanged fire, running across the road to the Crazy Prices supermarket, and the car park beyond. Two of the gang were injured and arrested. The others tried to hijack a car, but were stopped by police and arrested. They had thrown most of their weapons away, and claimed to be innocent by-standers, but one pistol was left in the car and discovered. The rest of the weapons were recovered. One newspaper headline was "shoot-out at the Crazy P" Among the weapons were 2 Astra 357 revolvers, an Astra automatic and a polish Radom 9mm pistol. Far as I can recall they weren't charged with bombing Balmoral Furnishings (which was destroyed, putting a number of local people out of work) but with firearms offences, due to difficulties in getting evidence linking them to the actual explosives.

reply