MovieChat Forums > Hunger (2008) Discussion > sympathy for sands?

sympathy for sands?


im from southern Ireland and had mixed feelings about the film.although the movie portrays the whole situation in a rather objective light, i couldnt help but feel sympathy for the character.I had to keep reminding myself that he was terrorist.

reply


thank you for your honesty.

I think you have just proven my central point - ie that this film is either deliberately or by ommission, uncritical and sympathetic to terrorism and would not be tolerated if the central character had been a terrorist connected to 9/11.

reply

[deleted]


Oh dear !

bigloki, you are now adding homophobia to your list of crimes..... I have no care who the OP is or what is predilictions are, I do however, read a large degree in honesty from his comments here.

You are also wrong about me being English, I have repeatedly told this forum that I am Northern Irish.

But then again you southern 'plastic' revolutionairies, have difficulty understanding how people born free in the North would not want to share in your Hollywood fantasy of 'auld Ireland'.

I am glad to know that there are many southerners who do not share your out of date nationalistic wet dreams. Unfortunately this film has served to fuel a few more masturbatory sessions for the likes of you as you imagine yourselves locked in that small cell with your 'hero' bobby.

reply

you r 1 major troll ricey

reply


no, I have consistently stuck to my view and argued it coherently with those interested - I have largely ignored those like you who are more interested in personal name calling and taunting.


...is a troll, anyone who disagrees with you ?

reply

i'm not gonna feed you troll..you are the weakest link GOODBYE

"Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation DNFTT redirect here. For the Wikipedia essay, see "What is a troll?". For other uses see Troll (disambiguation).

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

reply

I say bigloki dear chum, I suppose you frequent many gay pubs in the north where the big tough IRA boys bonk their brotherly backsides while the *beep* protestants cry freedom from IRA oppression and murder. Al-Qaeda gettin' their asses kicked by the filly-flam IRA? PFFT. Come play a special game of football you'll be so entertained on what is used as the ball. C'mon ya hire *beep* IRA wimps!

reply

wow... bigloki.. that was quite a rant. what alot of hate you have in your heart..i pity you

reply

I enjoyed the movie for what it was a work of art. Considering that there was definite sympathy shown in the movie and i agree with you on that. Of course, i cant hold the bias that you have against the IRA however the comparison of Sands to 9/11 terrorists is false in more ways than one.

Firstly, the charges that Sands was arrested upon were for an alleged gunbattle with RUC therefore he was not directly killing civilians. He was part of an organization that did carry out said attacks but he himself did not directly have his hand in the killing since he was not found guilty for bombing in Dunmurry.

Secondly, by reading your other posts its clear that you have strong feeling towards this issue and i respect that but even so its impossible to have an absolutist moral highground with issues of terrorism. In fact one of the increasing conflicts within politics is the issue of moral equivalence, in the sense that the state that these organizations were fighting against could they not also be classified as being 'terrorists'. Certainly, the UVF had its fair share of violent acts. In todays world, every moral question revolves on utilitarianism, not a completely perfect system but still far more practical than absolutism.

Thirdly, i recommend that you read some of Michael Walzers work on Just War and Arguing about War before you attempt to classify all terrorists under one umbrella.

Lastly, the movie did provide a good length of itself to the prison guard and the atrocities carried out towards the guard, so in essence it was not completely biased. There is a reason that Fassbender could not be considered as a leading actor for this movie because he was not, he was a supporting actor, there was no real lead.

Finally, there is a reason that the IRA conflict is used as THE model for further game theory applications of peace in todays world, specifically in the Middle East, therefore there is definitely something both fronts did correctly that is recognized by the world today.

reply

aquits -
I am gald you agree that this film is sympathetic to Sands and therefore terrorism as Sands was a terrorist - whether convicted of having a gun which would be used to kill or pulling the trigger himself he was a terrorist.
I am not sure why you think this is different from 9/11 ? was there a difference between the guy flying one the planes and those holding back the passengers ? of course not.

Terrorism is a black and white issue, UVF or IRA terrorism is still terrorism, deliberately, systematically targetting civilians is terrorism. The British state did not target civilians in NI, otherwise there would have been tens of thousands dead - there is no moral equivilance between the terrorists and the state in NI.

reply

"I am gald you agree that this film is sympathetic to Sands and therefore terrorism as Sands was a terrorist"

rice, close minded, ignorant responses like your's, in the face of a well worded, legitimate response that you most likely agree with, is a perfect example why terrorists will feel they need to exist...

reply

"Terrorism is a black and white issue"

-- Don't wanna get into a big debate here, but just to respond to that comment: No, it is definitely not. I have no idea how you could even say that.



"I tried to snort a floor." - Iggy Pop

reply

Terrorism is nothing but the mirror that the Establishment it's directed upon may look into. Don't think it comes from nowhere. Just one careful look at this mirror would be very helpful.

As an Israeli, I perfectly know what I'm talking about.


Thanks God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

Very well said, hannah_yacob. Thanks for posting that.


You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

The British state DID target civilians in NI: Bloody Sunday, internment, cruelty and discrimination carried out by the RUC and the UDR ('legitimate' arms of British authority in NI), etc, etc. The Irish population have a lengthy and well-documented history of oppression by the English; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

I speak as someone from Northern Ireland, brought up in Protestant communities (although I'm aware religion should have no bearing on political opinion), but I consider myself to belong to neither 'side'. Terrorism is always wrong, but this film makes a point about human rights. Whether or not the hunger strikers are considered to have been terrorists, no-one has the right to treat them, or any prisoner, regardless of their 'crime' (itself contentious), in the inhumane and barbaric way depicted by McQueen.

The film is not so much sympathetic towards Sands as it is towards humanity.

reply


Lisa, there is NO evidence that ANYONE DID treat Sands as in the film.....

rather the strikers were treated with full medical treatment and care and were not force fed which would have brought further accusations.

You make several assertions without evidence - the only systematic violence and torture in Northern Ireland was committed by the IRA and other terrorist forces who did not take prisoners or did not care for 'human rights'

reply

There is no evidence either that the strikers were treated as you say.

I have actually got evidence of the brutality of British forces, such as the UDR and RUC. My mother grew up on the Shankill Road, and had a close friend in the UDR, many of which systematically and deliberately targeted civilians simply because they were seen in Catholic/Republican areas. They would unfairly harrass them verbally, often physically, and subject them to humiliating searches in the middle of streets.

In Larne, the RUC (and the apparently different PSNI) are notorious for allowing, condoning and helping to arrange the beating-up, maiming and disabling of Catholics by Loyalist paramilitaries. One was attacked by the UDA with a machete on their doorstep while a police landrover could be seen within about 100 yards.

These are only two experiences I know of through family and friends (who directly saw such incidences). Castlereagh RUC station is known to have been investigated by Amnesty International for their breaches of human rights, when they repeatedly tortured arrestees to extract false confessions. The list goes on...

Of course the IRA have perpetrated violent acts, but for such acts to have been committed by the very authorities who were supposed to be bringing about peace and order is something I find impossible to square.

reply

so Lisa, apart from heresay and some claim that the UDR searched men in the streets (ie doing their job) you clearly have NO evidence of systematic brutality by the authorities do you ?

The police took prisoners, the IRA tortured them, mutilated them and murdered them.

reply

What I stated was not hearsay, it is fact. I have regular contact with people who have first hand, direct experience of such treatment, as I stated in my post. The UDR actions I spoke of were not part of their job. Unless, that is, it's ok to sexually assault women and beat and kick men on their way to/from work rather than simply search them. And these accounts of SYSTEMATIC BRUTALITY come from within the UDR itself from ex members (that is, friends of my mother). They are ashamed to have had anything to do with the organisation, and they're practising Protestants who vote for Unionist parties. So I can't fathom how you would defend them.

You probably are/were a member of the RUC (PSNI, whatever) in order to disclaim any knowledge of what they did to innocent civilians. Even if an arrestee/prisoner was guilty of a crime, they are still entitled to basic human rights. Don't get me wrong, the RUC have victimised Protestants as well as Catholics (although the latter is the more common). In 1992, in the middle of the afternoon, I saw RUC policemen beat children and defenceless adults on Yorkgate train station platform who were returning home from the Twelfth parades for FARE EVASION. I was 8 years old and sitting in the train while it was at the station. Their brutality was widespread; anyone who says otherwise is either in denial or has had the wool pulled over their eyes.

Members of the RUC/UDR operated under their own laws, much like a paramilitary force, but with supposed 'legitimate' status. Many of them abused their power; it still goes on today within the British Army in Afghanistan and recently in Guantanamo Bay by the US. Yes, the IRA did also inflict cruel treatment on people but as I said before, and as you've ignored, the IRA were and are not authorities posted to bring so-called peace; the police and army were supposed to have been.

reply

"What I stated was not hearsay, it is fact. I have regular contact with people who have first hand, direct experience of such treatment, as I stated in my post. The UDR actions I spoke of were not part of their job. Unless, that is, it's ok to sexually assault women and beat and kick men on their way to/from work rather than simply search them. And these accounts of SYSTEMATIC BRUTALITY come from within the UDR itself from ex members (that is, friends of my mother). They are ashamed to have had anything to do with the organisation, and they're practising Protestants who vote for Unionist parties. So I can't fathom how you would defend them.

You probably are/were a member of the RUC (PSNI, whatever) in order to disclaim any knowledge of what they did to innocent civilians. Even if an arrestee/prisoner was guilty of a crime, they are still entitled to basic human rights. Don't get me wrong, the RUC have victimised Protestants as well as Catholics (although the latter is the more common). In 1992, in the middle of the afternoon, I saw RUC policemen beat children and defenceless adults on Yorkgate train station platform who were returning home from the Twelfth parades for FARE EVASION. I was 8 years old and sitting in the train while it was at the station. Their brutality was widespread; anyone who says otherwise is either in denial or has had the wool pulled over their eyes.

Members of the RUC/UDR operated under their own laws, much like a paramilitary force, but with supposed 'legitimate' status. Many of them abused their power; it still goes on today within the British Army in Afghanistan and recently in Guantanamo Bay by the US. Yes, the IRA did also inflict cruel treatment on people but as I said before, and as you've ignored, the IRA were and are not authorities posted to bring so-called peace; the police and army were supposed to have been."




absolutely hilarious response - first you say it is NOT heresay and then you go on to spout yet more heresay...."my mom said this....the UDR man said that...etc...etc..."
go ahead and look up the word heresay and then look up, evidence. There is a big difference, and then look up the word 'systematic' before you start accusing the securty forces of anything worthy of association with Guantanemo - then again you probably believe everything the released detainees spout also......



reply

Thank you, I already know what HEARSAY means (your strange spelling of it does not exist in the OED; I think you're mixing up heresy with hearsay). For your info, here is the definition listed:

"hearsay: information received by word of mouth, usually with implication that it is not trustworthy; oral tidings; report, tradition, rumour, common talk, gossip."

So no, what I said in my last post was not hearsay, as none of it was rumour or idle talk. It was, rather, first-hand witness accounts. And my own experience was included.

Systematic simply means that which is regular and methodical, which these occurrences were.

reply

"absolutely hilarious response - first you say it is NOT heresay and then you go on to spout yet more heresay...."my mom said this....the UDR man said that...etc...etc..."

For a guy who uses the "I met Bobby Sands and he was an idiot" argument quite a lot, you shouldn't be accusing anyone else of hearsay Rice.

reply


I dint believe I said I met him - are you mistaken or lying ?

I do happen to know a few officers who served in the H Blocks and know several insider stories - happy to share them if you would like to hear about your 'heroes'

The story of the strikers' mother who convinced him to go back on the strike when he wanted to stop, he was one of the dead.......what a shame that wasnt included in this film.

reply

@ sarah_lisa

the IRA sexually abused people

this was covered up 100%

reply

rice,
Your the one so worried about what is sympathetic or not.
I suggest you study further neutral writings on the subject. You are presenlty incapable of seeing both sides while acusing others of this malady.

reply

mimbresgirl,

I can appreciate your honesty as your post is very thought provoking and seems very sincere and genuine. That said, In your "invading force" scenario, I could never target non-military/civilian women and children, ever.

reply

[deleted]

Here is some honesty:

I just watched this film, I have secondary family that died in 911, cousins that have died in southeast asia and family fighting in the middle east.

I do not believe if you are fighting an invading alien force within your own country, city or front yard you could be called a terrorist.

I would fight if any foreign invader landed in my front yard and began disrupting life as I knew it, go ahead and call me a terrorist.

I do believe other leaders in other countries could brand you as a terroist but these people always have either power or financial agendas and sometimes are the direct cause of terrorism, themselves.

bobby sands was fighting on his own front yard for freedom, what more needs to be said?

I have a nephew who will be an invading force in an alien country carrying a weapon. This is wrong. He is the terrorizing invading force and I only hope he will kill no one while he is there and have respect for that society. He should be at home in a University. It is wrong to be where you don't belong no matter the feeble justification for invasion.

bobby sands was and always will be the native in this scenario. The 911 terrorists were not in their own front yards.

Sometimes it seems that, Time, itself must consider who the true terrorists were at a later time, when all facts are known.

reply

U know... I am watching the film Right now. It's 09/14, and there was the whole discussion about 09/11 and I am tired of it. Not minimizing that those scenes were the GREATEST HORROR that we ever testified. BUT I have to mention, there was a lot of subsequent "terror" after 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2p2p6xW-3I

and more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Ip-eXFE_g&feature=related.


TRYING TO OPPRESS TERROR WITH MORE TERROR????
I don t understand, doesn' t that makes them all the same? I mean, of course if I had lost someone to a terrorist attack, I would be longing to do the same, but... I don t understand, it s an ENDLESS TERROR. VIOLENCE, UNBEARABLE!

That is the world we live in. We make ATOMIC BOMBS and the AMERICANS KILLED more than 300 THOUSAND people with them. IN fact they are the only nation that made use of this ATROCIOUS TERROR agains another PEOPLE. INOCENT PEOPLE, CHILDREN, WOMEN.


And here in this movie I see the exact same thing. They are terrorists and in the beginning of the movie the author makes it clear: there is no POLITICAL VIOLENCE, POLITICAL MURDER, POLITICAL ANYTHING. THere is violence, and that is it.

I am saying this while watching the 10th disturbing scene of the movie and MY POINT is: Men enjoy violence. It s that simple. ONes are more sadistic than others, but it's clear, I don t know the POINT of all this. 9/11 (although I still can t believe that was a terrorist attack...) Doesn't matter much to me... MEN LOVE VIOLENCE. that is it.

WE, WOMEN AND CHILDREN CANNOT STAND MORE VIOLENCE!!!!

reply

That atomic bomb, yes pandora's box that it was/is, was necessary to save 100,000 lives that would have been lost in a ground/air invasion of Japan to stop their evil and ferocious war machine. Read some history about the empire of the rising sun and you will see that they were similar to al queda: a twisted religion, a thirst for violence, fanatical-self righteousness and unspeakable acts vs innocents. See: Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor, Baatan Death marches etc...

reply

you say he was a "terrorist". whats a terrorist? is it someone who murders innocent people, or gives the order to have them killed? is george bush a terrorist? is tony blare? wasn't Margaret Thatcher?

Adams and McGlinchey were called the number one terrorists in the world not too long ago, now they are respected politicians. Michael Collins was called a terrorist, Padraig Pearse and James Connolly too. so was George Washington in the u.s. I guess a terrorist is someone who doesn't use sophisticated enough weapons to murder innocent people. if i use a stealth bomber or a black hawk helicopter i cant be a terrorist.

“When I die, Dublin will be written in my heart.”
James Joyce

reply

Seamus, in my mind a terrorist is a person who attacks the public directly based a political motive(omagh, 911 attack for example), but you make a good point. are our political leaders any less culpable for the deaths of the innocent who die indirectly as a result of there actions?

reply

By this definition Nelson Mandella is a terrorist. He has been cannonised by most of the world including the British government but he was directly responisble for civilian casualties.

reply

Rice-1 is quite clearly a troll.

Dont give it the satisfaction of drawing you into a debate that you will only win anyway.

reply

[deleted]


that is a phallacy.

A terrorist is always a terrorist until they stop murdering innocent people.

A loyalist who shoots a catholic for being catholic is never a freedom fighter and a catholic who murders protestants for being a protestant is never a freedom fighter either.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp - unless you are one of those people who people the end always justifies the means, that for example it was okay for Sands or his colleagues to blow up woman and chidren so long as they believed they were doing it for a United Ireland/political cause.

I for one believe that is wrong and if that makes me a troll in some eyes then so be it.

reply

A troll in this instance (on-line) defines someone that is solely looking to provoke argument. - That is, without a shadow of a doubt, your perogative.

May i ask you why, when you refer to a loyalst 'shooting' a catholic you use the term 'shoots', yet when you use the same scenario in reference to a catholic 'MURDERING' a protestant you use the term 'murders'?

I am also of the opinion that blowing up woman and children is wrong. I am sure however, that that was not the main objectivce at the time (not that that makes it better).
In addtion, i dont not believe that the british army deliberatley massacre the many thousands of people they have in the north or Ireland, afghanistan, iraq...etc....

Are they to be commended and held in high regard?

Is their cause any more ritcheous than that of Bobby Sands MP?



You have an awful lot of posts on a film that you dont like. Why don't you go and post on a film that you enjoyed?

My guess is that you have not even seen this film anyway.

Go with god.



Hail Hail

reply

"A terrorist is always a terrorist until they stop murdering innocent people."

Well, I doubt Sands murdered any innocent people while he was in prison so are you saying he wasn't a terrorist anymore? He handed in his membership when he was convicted? Your other posts seem to suggest otherwise. Or perhaps you just didn't think that one through. Shocking.

reply

how absurd - are you suggesting terrorists arent terrorists unless they are ACTUALLY in the act of murdering ? or are you being a pedantic troll ?

reply

You're the troll, chief, as many here would seem to agree. I'm just pointing out the holes.

reply

When did the PIRA ever murder protestants for being protestants?

The ASUs in England were under strict orders from the PIRA to take all possible steps to avoid civilian casualties in their bombing campaigns. Much like the rest of the armys of the western world. The Troubles lasted for almost 40 years and cost less than 4000 lives. The war in Iraq has been going on since 2003, and has cost over a million lives, with 7000 civilian deaths in the 2003 monthlong invasion alone. Does this make the US and the british army terrorists as well?

reply

When did the PIRA ever murder protestants for being protestants?

The numerous tit for tat killings, for example The Kingsmill Massacre? The Enniskillen bombing? Many times actually.
Took steps to avoid civilian casualties? Are you taking the piss? What about Warrington? Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings? The Oxford Street bombing? The Harrods bombing?
Hell, let's just use Wiki, adequate for listings if nowt else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Provisional_IRA_actions
Plenty of evidence there for a total disregard for civilians.
As far as I'm aware the US Army and the British don't and haven't [i]delibrately/i] tried to cause civilian deaths, they tried to avoid them. The PIRA can't say the same, can they?
Pointless bringing the Iraq war into it anyway, the majority of British people didn't agree with it and the Army is compelled to do the government's bidding.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

reply

The Kingsmills massacre has never been proven to have been ordered by the IRA leadership. In fact, many IRA volunteers condemned it. To hold that against the entire IRA is the same as to claim that the US Army is designed to rape and kill civilians, as this has happened several times in Iraq.

Enniskillen never targeted civilians, it was supposed to hit the british army. It wasn't even intended to detonate during the parade at all, in fact the IRA issued a statement with an apology the very next day. The bomb was supposed to hit the soldiers preparing for the parade, but due to an error it went off during the parade. This would be comparable to US aircrew dropping ordnance on canadian/english soldiers in Afghanistan - tragic accidents. The IRA did not target civilians at Enniskillen.

The Guildford bombings had nothing do to with protestantism, the pubs were chosen as targets because they were frequented by military personell. This is also reflected in the fact that 80% of the casualties were soldiers. I'm not saying that this justifies the attack, but when civilian casualties are down to 20% you can hardly claim that this was targeting innocent civilians. Re the Birmingham bombings, if it was intended to kill as many civilians as possible, why phone in a warning before the bomb went off?

A terrorist organisation that aims to kill as many civilians as possible do not phone in warnings before the bomb detonates, and they do not apologise if civilians happens to be killed as a result of their actions. The ASUs in England were under strict orders to minimise civilian casualties, just as the british and US army in Iraq and Afghanistan are. Yet civilian casualties have been caused by all of these organisations. In fact, the coalition forces in OIF and OEF are responsible for many, many more civilian deaths than the IRA.

I have as of yet seen nothing that proves that the IRA leadership deliberately targeted civilians.

reply

[deleted]

"...a catholic who murders protestants for being a protestant is never a freedom fighter either."

Right there you prove that you know absolutely nothing about the IRA. It doesn't matter that the brits are protestants, it only matters that they're BRITISH.

The brits have murdered and oppressed MILLIONS of Irish men, women and children over the last 800 years. If you think the Irish shouldn't defend themselves, you're crazy.

If another country invaded England, took over, and oppressed you, wouldn't you fight them for your freedom?? Of course you would, and good on ya'. And that would make you Freedom Fighters. So why, when the Irish do it, they're "terrorists"? That makes no sense. If the brits had never invaded Ireland, there would be no need for the IRA.

The brits started the war, the brits kept it going, and the brits LOST.

I think it's that the brits are so arrogant and feel such entitlement, they think they can do whatever they want and how dare the people they invade and oppress fight back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRJGfe0k7rI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPKC-nQXyok&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaO4XeHhwo8&feature=related

reply

In reply to the OP - I too felt great empathy with Sands, and I won't apologise to anyone for it. How anyone could not sympathise with the human element of this film is beyond me. Are people so desensitised that they feel nothing watching a human being basically rot before their eyes? Politics aside, it was a shocking sight to see.

"See, the problem I'm having is I've lost my stash and you're talking about elephants"

reply


you felt sympathy because that is what the director intended. A result of any real placing of the events of this film and the crimes of Sands in any real context.

In this mode, I guess you are going to cry your eyes out again when the director makes his sequel about the trauma and sacrifice of the 'brave 19' hijackers on 9/11.......oh how those poor men must have suffered on a human level as you might say....

reply

[deleted]


the problem is, there would NEVER be a similar film about 9/11 !

the bluring of the lines in terms of republican violence, the liberal/left wing belief that they were somehow freedom fighters even thought they still separated bone from the flesh of innocents - this somehow makes it 'okay' to show IRA 'bravery' on screen, when 'brave' Al Qaeda fighters flying into buildings will not be acceptable.

In effect Sands and the hijackers of 9/11 both commited suicide, you can argue that the 9/11 hijackers were braver in that they faced certain death whilst Bobby hopped to earn reprieve - personally I dont see the distinction, they are both acts of terrorism and equate to the same destruction of innocent life.

If that makes it black and white then that does not make it any less correct.

reply

[deleted]


This is such a true point! Who do Hollywood think they are!

These people are common crooks, criminals, uneducated morons who declared war on the British ( RULING) empire ! Especially pastie man!

Criminals, they deserve to rot in jail forever! The same people who are cousins to the folk who killed people in Omagh and murder young police officers!

Northern Ireland is British and the word needs to be spread around the world about our country and our relations with the crown....I am fed up with travelling and people saying, " Oh yeah, you are Irish"............ Shut it!!!!!!!!!!! I say!

" I am northern irish, british and have nothing to do with a republic identity. People get a bit shaken up by it, but me and my mates are slowly but surely getting the message across, especially when we tell the truth about them thinking they can have the island to themselves and about their corrupt murdering past.....Ulster Scots......The North of the island was ours and it always will be!

Rangers, we are the people. No fenians in europe! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

"You will never take our culture away, the culture of truth and reason" - Ian Paisley on reflection of Orangefest

reply

Pshhhhh! Just relax. IRA are the bad ones, since they allways were the mirror of your Hunns government.

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

[deleted]

"You will never take our culture away, the culture of truth and reason" - Ian Paisley on reflection of Orangefest


You’d have more credibility without quoting an infamous religious bigot like Paisley.

reply

Black Rider, I read your post and had to throw in my two cents; there is this misconception that terrorists, specifically the 9/11 bombers, were "brave" because they "sacrificed" themselves to kill their perceived enemy. This is total BS. When you truly believe (and you know they must have) that you are going on to a "better place" and will be rewarded by your "god" in paradise with 72 virgins etc, and your life will be quickly snuffed with little to no pain while causing death & dismemberment to innocent civililians, this is not bravery, it's mindless, brainwashed zealotry and total disregard for life.

reply

///while causing death & dismemberment to innocent civililians, this is not bravery, it's mindless, //// total disregard for life.////

No terrorist organisation may compete with an Army in this respect. Sorry.

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

It's all about intent, but something tells me that you could never understand this.

reply

The intent is to kill, in both occasions. But here's one thing I really don't understand: why do people like you think the criminal in uniform is way better than criminal in balaklava? The civil casualties inflicted by the former are far more severe.

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

That makes it ok in your mind I guess...

reply

///That makes it ok in your mind I guess...///

Not, it's not ok.

But don't forget that the crime perpetrated by a person in uniform usually remains unpunished. More that that, the criminals in the uniform often get praised and decorated (Bloody Sunday is a pefect example).

NB. You have to copy and past the original comment you're responding to, in order to avoid confusion.

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

Killing innocent civilians for land/so-called honor is never justified. Is what the IRA have been fighting for truly worth the lives lost and the innocents maimed? "F" these "heroes", they should die of starvation whether it's self inflicted or not.

reply

OK dear, end of discussion.

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

"Is what the IRA have been fighting for truly worth the lives lost and the innocents maimed?"

1. The british have killed millions of innocent Irish men, women and children. How do you justify that?

2. Freedom is worth fighting and dying for.

reply

"The british have killed millions of innocent Irish men, women and children. How do you justify that? "

I don't justify it, I won't attempt to and I never intended to. The problem is that you, and others in this thread, are trying to justify the murder of innocents at the hands of the IRA and there IS no justification for that.

reply

"1. The british have killed millions of innocent Irish men, women and children. How do you justify that?

2. Freedom is worth fighting and dying for"



A1 - when did they kill MILLIONS of innocent Irish men ?? I am northern Irish and my family have always lived in Ireland and we never heard about this ? Honestly you miss one meeting and this happens !!

When were these people murdered by the British ? I would have thought that millions of murdered Irish people would have made the news, especially on an island with only a few million to begin with.

I hope you are not blaming the potato blight virus on the British by the way ? That would be ludicrous.

A2 - yes Freedom IS worth fighting for, thats why the free people of Northern Ireland have fought against IRA fascism and defeated them. Thankfully NI is still a democracy.

reply

///thats why the free people of Northern Ireland have fought against IRA fascism and defeated them.////

Bad news for you, Mr. Rice!

The terror, as bad as it is, is nothing but the consequent result of a violent barbaric colonial rule.

///defeated them///

Looks more like if "they" taugth your Government a lesson: the best way to stop the terror is - making steps toward real equality of all citisens, without regard of their religion and ethnicity.

Thanks God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

So, is killing innocent women and children the fighting & dying you state in your declaration?

reply

Not, I don't.

My declaration is that State terror (that kills no less innocent women and children) provokes the terror of an individuals, as bad as it is. The only difference is that criminal in balaclava is punished while the criminal in uniform is praised and decorated. Bloody Sunday is a scandalous example.

I've to repeat myself: the only way to stop the terror is - to establish the real equality of all citisens, without regard of their religion. The Good Friday Agreement is a proof.

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply


The IRA were NOT fighting for equality or freedom - they were fighting for a United Ireland and for a left wing extreme socialist government.

I always thought it ironic that americans who detested Cuban communism and worried about the spread of communism, failed to see that they were supporting one of the most communist parties of the Western World ie Sinn Fein. Watch Gerry Adams even now, they stil talk of 'comrades' and are proud of their support from and for other global left wing terrorist groups.

reply

Good points rice-1, I am of Irish descent and live in Boston. I grew up with many Irish Americans who, for some sort of baseless loyalty that they really couldn't explain, would wear IRA t-shirts and express support even though they knew pretty much next to nothing about them.

reply

The State terror is as dangerous as the terror of an individuals, or even more dangerous, because the crimes committed for the name of State remain unpunished; those in uniform are like being above the Justice, for they aren't accountable for their crimes.

Nothing is as repulsive as unjustice.

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

[deleted]

Rice, I'm assuming you're an Ulster loyalist. That's the vibe I get from you. Speaking for myself, I used to feel much more supportive of the IRA than I currently do. The events of 9/11, plus the Intifada the Israelis have had to go through have convinced me that there's no "good" terrorism. It's all bad. As far as the IRA being left wing, I think they deliberately downplayed that for their American supporters. I would guess that highlighting America's violent separation from Britain, which the IRA was trying to achieve, would play better than dwelling on the socialist leanings of much of Irish Republicanism.

To be fair though, I think many people overestimate the actual financial and/or military aid given to the IRA by Americans. To most Irish-Americans, an IRA is an individual retirement account.

reply

[deleted]

Bobby Sands was not a terrorist, he was a hero. He gave his life for this country(Ireland), i hate when people call the old IRA members terrorists, people like Bobby Sands who gave their lives for this country should not be remembered as terrorists, they should be remembered for what they are, Irish Heros.

reply

Bobby Sands was not a terrorist, he was a hero. He gave his life for this country(Ireland), i hate when people call the old IRA members terrorists, people like Bobby Sands who gave their lives for this country should not be remembered as terrorists, they should be remembered for what they are, Irish Heros.

Sin é. Bobby Sands, Joe Cahill, Brendan Hughes, Martin Meehan etc. are just as much Irish heroes as James Connolly, Michael Collins, and Wolfe Tone.

Keep the change, ya filthy animal...

reply


add Osama Bin Laden to this list of glorious heros of the revolution !!

Sands, Bin Laden........seperated at birth......

reply

You raise an interesting point, I think more than you realise.

Both men are threats to the west and both dehumanized to the point of abstract symbols. Symbols that people have loaded with their own meaning for their own ideological purposes.

Both men have become shorthand for justifying all kinds of attitudes and behavior (bombings are not murder, it's a 'preemptive strike'. When you blow up villages of civilIans by mistake, 'bad intel'.) The moral malleability of politics... ahhh, its a marvel.

The same goes for Hitler. Dehumanized beyond recognition. Problem is, he's more human than we would like to think. He is us. I think this prospect terrifies people most of all. But anyone interested in humans' and their actions is not interested in watching some cartoon portrayal, however evil (or good) that person may be.

Sands was a living breathing man in this movie. Whatever his beliefs, however justified or unjustified, right thinking or deluded they may have be, he was willing to die for them. Not just die, starve.

How many of us would do that? Post on IMDB for our beliefs, yes.

I suspect that almost no politician that's green lit the bombing of some village would starve for their convictions (or for that matter, actually possess any).

reply

Damn Rice, you almost made it two whole months without hitting CTRL+V and repeating another one of your well-worn catchphrases. You've fallen off the wagon now, and you were doing so well.

reply

[deleted]

sorry evanmang87 but Osama and Sands are VERY SIMILAR in thought and word and deed......

they both believe that force is allowable to force a democracy to abide by the will of the militant minority.

they also believe that innocent civilians are fair game in order to meet their undemocratic ends.

They both targetted people simply because they were of a different faith - Osama targets non muslims, the IRA targetted innocent protestants and commited genocide along the border areas of Northern Ireland.

Osama is different in at least one area however, Al Qaeda flew their planes into buildings whilst they stayed on the planes - the IRA prefered to strap innocent civilians into a lorry cab and force them to drive a bomb into police checkpoints........

terrorism is terrorism when you employ the methods above......simple














reply

As opposed to the militant "democrocies" that beleives that force on foreign nations is acceptable for achieving their "undemocratic ends"(innocent civillians also being fair game... Must be at least 200,000 Iraqi civillians dead by now, right)?

If you want people to take you seriously, lets not be naive. The difference between governments and rebels(or terrorists or freedom fighters or whatever you wanna call them) is a PR department and radio time.

reply

not so....

lets take away this myth that terrorism is just a matter of perspective.....not so.

Another mans freedom fighter is NOT another mans terrorist.......unless that is they deliberately target and murder innocent civilians or the forces of the law against the will of the majority and in the opposition of a democratic process.

ie to the take the usual example in these matters - the French resistance during WW2 were frredom fighters as they did not have the opportunity to remove the German invasion by democratic means ie a free election. If the French resistance deliberately targetted German children and innocent civilians as the IRA and Al Qaeda have done - then they would indeed be correctly termed terrorists.

The IRA in Northern Ireland deliberately targetted unarmed civilains and murdered them when they had every right and opportunity to stand at free elections to change the political stance of the country - this is what makes them terrorists.

reply

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets” (=wearing the uniform)

Voltaire


Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

rice,

I will not argue that the IRA engaged in terrorist activity...but then so did the loyalist paramilitaries, the RUC, the British army and MI-5. All parties to The Troubles, save for the innocent victims murdered by those previously mentioned, are culpable; to suggest otherwise is not only naive, but patently inaccurate.

You have a right to abhor the violence that was synonymous with life in Northern Ireland--everyone should shudder at the prospect. But what I think most folks find repugnant about your numerous arguments on these boards is your decidedly unilateral blame game. There is much blame to go around and a vast well of politicians and paramilitary "volunteers" from both sides to pass it off to. Surely you know this.

I'm afraid I must also take issue with your suggestion that the nationalists in the north, at any time during unionist majority or British direct rule, could have legislated or even voted their way to less unionist discrimination. The idea of a "free election" in Ulster was pure fantasy until the reforms instituted under the Good Friday Agreement. In 1981, when this film takes place, there was no chance whatsoever that nationalists could address their grievances through a "democratic" process.

There is an old adage: mushrooms will only grow in the shade...and violent political and social upheaval is almost exclusively the product of oppressive, unjust governments.

In other words, you reap what you sow and Ulster Unionism really only has itself to blame for creating what Thatcher called "the men of violence."

reply

Rice, where're thou?

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

I would love to know why you think elections in 1981 were unfair or that the electoral process was not equally open to republicans ? Afterall Sands was elected to parliament.....how would an unfair system have allowed that.

The IRA rejected the rule of Law and democracy and attempted to force their undemocratic will upon the majority and that HAS to be fought against.

reply

Well, for one, there were 10 unionist MP's to 2 nationalist MP's in 1979. This is hardly representative of the unionist/nationalist demographic breakdown of less than 2-to-1. And I find it interesting that the MP ratio doesn't significantly change until AFTER the Good Friday Agreement and the sweeping political reforms that resulted therefrom.

I think we can all agree that Bobby Sands was elected to Parliament as a direct result of the hunger strike and the publicity it generated. I would hardly point to his election as a shining example of the democratic process. If so, then the only conclusion to be drawn from it is that if nationalist or Catholic, one must starve himself to death to be elected to Parliament.

Again, I'm not advocating violence, nor am I registering any support for the IRA. I am merely saying that if you think a democratic government existed in Northern Ireland prior to the GFA, you are dreaming.

reply

of course there was free democracy in NI pre 1979 !

The fact that you didnt like the results of those elections is well.....tough, thats democracy.

There was one man one vote......the same as in most democratic countries at the time. The movement to PR did not make it more democratic simply a different form of voting which presumably appeals to you.

Sands et al were not denied a vote, they just werent in the majority and decided that they had the right to murder lots of those who would have voted contry to them in order to change their minds - now THATS undemocratic !!

reply

Gerrymandering, internment without trial, coerced confessions...and lest we forget that Parliament enacted a law AFTER SANDS WAS ELECTED to prohibit him from ever taking his seat (which was, obviously, a total waste of time)...

Mmmmm, yes, these are all products of a thriving democracy...

I'm afraid, rice, we shall not soon agree on this so I will leave you to your opinions and you can leave me to mine.

Surely someone on the "Michael Collins" or "Wind That Shakes the Barley" boards will take the bait.

As for me, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

reply

republicans are more than free to take their seats in Parliament, nothing prevents them.

Indeed scottish and welsh nationalists have taken their seats, the onlyreason Irish republicans dont is that they have rejected the proper rule of democracy and want the option of murder to drive their aims.

Sands was a not very bright pawn in this action - try finding someone who ever actually 'saw' him write one word of poetry.....a romanticised fiction of a warrior poet who in reality was a not too bright follower of a lost cause.

reply

of course there was free democracy in NI pre 1979 !

The fact that you didnt like the results of those elections is well.....tough, thats democracy.

There was one man one vote......the same as in most democratic countries at the time.


i honestly can't tell if you are in denial or are actually completely ignorant to what was going on in your own country!! i always wondered how the loyalist community in NI walked around with their heads held high while the irish communities lived in poverty....did you all SERIOUSLY not know what was going on!?? do you STILL not know??


i also note that in your assertion that terrorism is a 'black and white' issue, you conveniently ignored the question about nelson mandela.
you must have rejoiced the day he died right? given that he was an evil terrorist....right??


have also seen your assertions that there is no evidence that guards at the maze beat prisoners - then why are there numerous documentaries in which former guards talk about these beatings?
i have personally met a former guard who was there during the dirty protests - it took a long time (he was the relative of a boyfriend) but he did eventually open up about things that he personally did and witnessed. time and wisdom has left him with a very scarred conscience.

your bigotry has unfortunately left you with the inability to see what a sad and complex problem has been left behind by england's colonialism.

i personally abhor violence and can't say there'd be any situation where i'd resort to it. but then i didn't grow up in the north of ireland in a community which absolutely did NOT have proper democratic rights, got murdered in the streets when they protested, was denied employment based on which community they lived in, and the vast majority of which were living in poverty.

who knows if all the gains that have been made would have happened without the IRA? i highly doubt it, given the status quo had already gone on for decades.

reply

Rice-1

Your words are very prejudiced on the subject.

Osama Bin Laden's posse was not at home on 911, they were a half world away from home.

Bobby Sands was in his own front yard!

reply

I remind myself every day that Maggie Thatcher is also a terrorist.

reply

Exactly, and so is Ian Paisley.

reply

maybe it was empathy and not necessarily sympathy w/ Sands. the people involved on both sides are human beings making hard sometimes bad choices. i think McQueen definitely humanized both sides... and he was pretty objective about it. and whether or not you agree with what the characters chose to do for a living, to their communities, or with their own bodies you at least saw the context in which these people were making those choices and see that they're not too unlike yourself.

i really like this movie... it's probably obvious.

reply

[deleted]

You're perfectly right condemning terrorism.

Now, I'm truly interested to hear your notion concerning the numerous causes of murder and maiming of innocents by the Army (s.c. "killing fields", rubber and plastic bullets, etc), and the fact that the troops apparently guilty in causing deaths to civilians, allways walked scot-free (or even have been promoted in ranks).

So?

Thank God, I'm an Atheist! - Luis Bunuel

reply

I watched this for the first time tonight and thought it an extremely well made and intelligent film. It was also incredibly depressing. In fact, a lot like much of the discussion in this thread.

The film is not a political tract based around the troubles; they are merely the framing device for a more complex treatise on, amongst other things, the sometimes debilitating effects of fanaticism and, by extension, arbitrary belief systems in futile situations.

The name of the film is ironic. As well as meaning a physiological need for food; the consequence of food deprivation etc the definition of the title is also:

Hunger - strong desire for something (not food or drink); "He has a hunger in his heart."

It is Sands hunger that feeds him and, ironically, eventually causes him to starve to death. And seven further prisoners follow suit. The post-script then reveals that it was basically for nothing.

Those that have come on here to argue the toss over political ideologies or the respective moralities of either side have sadly missed the point entirely.

And that kids, as usual, is what is truly depressing.

If you wanna watch a film regarding the morality of terrorism in the face of state sanctioned oppression, try The Battle of Algiers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

to this day the british goverment is apologising for WAR crimes against the people of ireland, condemning the IRA is easy, understanding the plight behind the people of ireland is alot harder if you ignore the history of ireland, irish poeple were put off there land, burned from there homes ruled by filth such as the black and tans, then irish catholics in nireland were governed by bigoted pigs such as ian paisley were we were 3rd rate citizens at best, because the british Army has the queens seal it supposidly governs them to go to countries such as India and cause genocide, and in present day they are in countries such as afghanistan and iraq murdering 1000's of innocents for no other reason than commodities, were as countries such as nkorea pose a much greater treat - problem being they know they would get there ass's kicked there....

nothing can ever make murder right - and i myself lost a friend in the nireland troubles - but blindness and ignorance is nothing but embarrassing in an age were information so readily available, accept the fact that Bobby Sands is a Martyr to alot of people in Ireland and understand his evil was created by evil

reply

Well said but the targetting/murder of innocent, civilian women and children is not justified by anything you said.

reply

very true, and I hope my post does not imply other wise...

reply

No, I don't think it does but could be mistaken for such as it came into the thread during an exchange where one poster was expressing that position.

reply

I understand your post as faithfully, not, inplying that collateral kill is justified. I'm just not sure why Mr Tucker would assume my post and yours would insinuate this. Why does he keep bringing it up?

reply

Perhaps I'm responding to statements like this that you made:

"bobby sands was fighting on his own front yard for freedom, what more needs to be said?"

Fighting? You mean when a military force meets another and engages in combat or do you mean leaving bombs in city trash barrels that explode and kill civilian women and children?

Even the IRA admits they were guilty of this and were wrong:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/17/world/ira-apologizes-for-civilian-deaths-in-its-30-year-campaign.html

reply

///Even the IRA admits they were guilty of this and were wrong:///

IRA does admit for sure... Why don't your State admit it was wrong too killing "civilian" women and children (no less that IRA)? Because it sees itself above Justice, thus making itself even more dangerous than IRA.


Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

When cowards hide among the people, set up bases of attack in mosques or use human shields, you must blame them. When so called "freedom fighters" leave bombs in trash barrels to detonate and kill anyone, they are a terrorist and deserve no sympathy. Do you agree?

reply

I do. What about the Army, that drops the bombs murdering hundreds of innocents? That shoots into defenseless crowd with total disregard for human life?

Terrorists deserve no sympathy. Do the "heroes" in uniforms deserve to be decorated by HM the Queen (that really happened)?

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

If those bombs are targeting the terrorists I spoke of, who attack innocents and are hiding among the populace, then it's an unfortunate result that needs to be blamed on the targets.

reply

///an unfortunate result that needs to be blamed on the targets.///

No, Sir. It's the more than unfortunate result that needs to be blamed not so on "targets" as on Hunnish government and it's barbarian mercenaries.

"unfortunate", my #$$. Crocodile's tears, if you ask me.

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

Not sure what you said, your post was a bit incoherent but to correct my post, I meant to say "intended targets." Hopefully that clears things up.

reply

But Sir, the major problem is that hundreds of innocents usually become the intended targets. And lest you say they were murdered "unintentionally".

Utter disregard for human's life equates intention.

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

You make too many stretches & fallacious declarations. If the US had utter disregard for human life, we would use more devastating weapons. We would have levelled fallujah with carpet bombing for example.

reply

///we would use more devastating weapons. We would have levelled fallujah with carpet bombing for example.///

Hi Mr. davidtucker1, nice to hear from you again, and thank you kindly for not levelling Fallujah, using more devastating weapons. Such a touching display of humanity. As touching as a high moral ground you've appropriated for yourself while preaching on the theme of terrorism.

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

Nice work. You've managed to deflect instead of see the message in my words. The bolded words you posted were not lost on me. I got your message but mine has evaded you. I know your heart is true but you are misguided. You must see the forest through the trees or all your work is in vain.

reply

Well, by making words bold I don't mean that you personally (Heaven forbid) bomb or use the "more devastating weapons". I mean by that that you identify yourself with those do use these measures indeed. Hope I'm still "misguided".

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

[deleted]

Your posts are outrageous, stop spouting racism on IMDb!

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply

[deleted]

The brits have killed MILLIONS of innocent Irish men, women and children. How do you justify THAT?

reply

I have never tried to justify anything the brits have done, you are trying to build a Tu Quoque argument here and it is fallacious.

reply

In order to accuse someone for being terrorist, you should be far more peacefull than English goverment in those years.

watch everything you like, dont like everything you watch.

reply

i have sympathy only for the cop who was doing his job, not for the terrorist.

reply

The "cop" who was doing his job by brutalizing prisoners? Sympathy for that guy?

ce n'est pas une image juste, c'est juste une image

reply

No sympathy at all for that guy, but even the bad person shouldn't be executed.

Listen to your enemy, for God is talking

reply