Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

It wasn't me!

eyescreamcone wrote: »

experience of being in an army

*Munches popcorn*

gizmo555

Mr McGuinness has just been confronted by Brian Dobson on the Six-One News with an interview he gave to Michael O'Higgins for Hot Press in the 80s.

In the interview, McGuinness characterised the killing of Pte Kelly and Gda Sheehan at Ballinamore as justifiable "self defence".

His face was a picture - first he denied any recollection of the interview, then when told that O'Higgins (now a prominent Senior Counsel) had confirmed for RTE that the interview as printed was entirely accurate, he muttered something to the effect that if he had said such a thing at the time, he was wrong.

goldie fish

eyescreamcone wrote: »

As Marty is the only candidate with any experience of being in an army, wouldn't he be the best candidate to be commander of the Defence Forces???

He wasn't in an army..

SleepAtNight

The Irish Defence forces....the same defence forces that when Irish people came under attack in the 6 Counties could only manage to set up a few field hospitals in border areas.....the same defence forces who's lack of any type of ability, or worse still lack of will, to help northern nationalists at that time led to McGuninnesses PIRA filling the inevitable gap.
The same defence forces who along with the shamefully inept Gardaí failed to pursue the perpetrators of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings of 72 and 74 which were carried out by British agents on another sovereign state...the first attack by a western European state on another since WW2. (Instead the Gardaí have seemed to have "lost" files on the case.)

I don't trust McGuinness and on that alone I think he would be a perfect commander in chief of the "Defence" Forces.

SleepAtNight

goldie fish wrote: »

He wasn't in an army..

In fairness when push came to shove it was Marty who was firing a gun in the Bogside while our so-called army pitched tents like boy scouts.

Poccington

The same Defence Forces which follows orders.

You're angry at the wrong people buddy. The DF was told to make plans for moving into the North, it did. The DF was told to move to the border and be ready to execute said plan, it did. The fact the DF didn't cross the border wasn't down to them, it was down to the Government.

Or would you rather a DF which does whatever it wants, whenever it wants?

SleepAtNight

Poccington wrote: »

The same Defence Forces which follows orders.

You're angry at the wrong people buddy. The DF was told to make plans for moving into the North, it did. The DF was told to move to the border and be ready to execute said plan, it did. The fact the DF didn't cross the border wasn't down to them, it was down to the Government.

Or would you rather a DF which does whatever it wants, whenever it wants?

That's true, the DF is just another arm, like the Gards, of a state that has at best turned a blind eye to, at worst conspired with, the actions of the imperial power on this island. Then that poses the question, what type of right thinking individual would want to join either of those two arms of the state that have both overlooked, and conspired with, British aggressive actions on this island.

Poccington

SleepAtNight wrote: »

That's true, the DF is just another arm, like the Gards, of a state that has at best turned a blind eye to, at worst conspired with, the actions of the imperial power on this island. Then that poses the question, what type of right thinking individual would want to join either of those two arms of the state that have both overlooked, and conspired with, British aggressive actions on this island.

So your previous two posts, full of content aimed at the inaction of the DF, actually wasn't the DF's fault.

Who joins the DF? West Brits... West Brits and people who want us to go back to the Commonwealth.

Rule Britannia and all that jazz.

SleepAtNight

Poccington wrote: »

So your previous two posts, full of content aimed at the inaction of the DF, actually wasn't the DF's fault.

Who joins the DF? West Brits... West Brits and people who want us to go back to the Commonwealth.

Rule Britannia and all that jazz.

To be honest at the time articles 2 and 3 were still in the Constitution and the DF shouldn't have needed the word of Jack to mobilise over part of the national territory. Actually it was in fact unconsitutional as the McGimpsey case in the 1980's proved that the national territory was not being defended.

Anyone who believes in Irish sovereignty and the right of Irish people to live without the maligne influence of imperialism obviously does not join the defence forces.

Poccington

SleepAtNight wrote: »

To be honest at the time articles 2 and 3 were still in the Constitution and the DF shouldn't have needed the word of Jack to mobilise over part of the national territory. Actually it was in fact unconsitutional as the McGimpsey case in the 1980's proved that the national territory was not being defended.

Anyone who believes in Irish sovereignty and the right of Irish people to live without the maligne influence of imperialism obviously does not join the defence forces.

Of course the DF needs the word of the Government in power at the time to carry out their actions. You can't have a DF acting independently of the Government. It's madness.

Of course they don't. They go and join illegal organisations responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people instead.

SleepAtNight

Poccington wrote: »

Of course the DF needs the word of the Government in power at the time to carry out their actions. You can't have a DF acting independently of the Government. It's madness.

Article 2 of the constitution of the time stated;
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

Now maybe the DF has to receive orders to travel anywhere on the national territory so I'll let that slide.

Of course they don't. They go and join illegal organisations responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people instead.

I wouldn't get too high and mighty about that seeing as the "defence" forces are helping...surprise surprise...their chums in the British army by tagging along on NATO's ISAF force. Quite happy to be pally pally with NATO despite the killing of tens of thousands of people there.

It's good to see your answer to that question unashamedly shows your utter disregard for Irish national sovereignty and the right of the people on this island to live without imperial dominance.

goldie fish

SleepAtNight wrote: »

Article 2 of the constitution of the time stated;
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.

Now maybe the DF has to receive orders to travel anywhere on the national territory so I'll let that slide.




I wouldn't get too high and mighty about that seeing as the "defence" forces are helping...surprise surprise...their chums in the British army by tagging along on NATO's ISAF force. Quite happy to be pally pally with NATO despite the killing of tens of thousands of people there.

It's good to see your answer to that question unashamedly shows your utter disregard for Irish national sovereignty and the right of the people on this island to live without imperial dominance.

I prefer the right of the people of the island to be governed by whoever they democratically decide.

Your skewed vew of history hides the fact that we were not an imperialist conquest. Our leaders invited the Crown forces over. Even the dreaded Cromwell spent much of his time here wiping out support for ROYALISTS, not republicans.....

SleepAtNight

goldie fish wrote: »

I prefer the right of the people of the island to be governed by whoever they democratically decide.

Your skewed vew of history hides the fact that we were not an imperialist conquest. Our leaders invited the Crown forces over. Even the dreaded Cromwell spent much of his time here wiping out support for ROYALISTS, not republicans.....

Hahahaha, even Eoghan Harris hasn't gone that far in his revisionist self loathing rewrite of Irish history.:D And I'm the one who's skewing things!! Why the hell do you think Britain had to have such an unbelievably high military presence here for centuries comparative to our size to other countries if we wanted them here?
Britain led the way globally in intelligence gathering and infiltration from the Cromwellian conquests on why? Because despite what you say that they were cordially invited guests...they actually ahd extreme difficulty bringing the country under control....why? Because it was a colony. Ireland did not behave like Scotland or Wales nor was it governed like them, why? Because there was mass resistence to British rule here and martial law was a daily occurance.

Even the British are beginging to disagree with your revisionist babble. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/oct/19/end-myths-britains-imperial-past

For further reading I recommend http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/501

And even the British military admit that the reason for their presence here is for geopolitical reasons http://books.google.ie/books?id=ZhAXt8bPF8MC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=geopolitical+strategy+anglo+irish&source=bl&ots=ld1lxbLMgB&sig=S8fokAbA3qdgiypsM9DgbZIQRdQ&hl=en&ei=aoGgTuL3E8HQhAei0rz4BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=geopolitical%20strategy%20anglo%20irish&f=false

goldie fish

SleepAtNight wrote: »

Hahahaha, even Eoghan Harris hasn't gone that far in his revisionist self loathing rewrite of Irish history.:D And I'm the one who's skewing things!! Why the hell do you think Britain had to have such an unbelievably high military presence here for centuries comparative to our size to other countries if we wanted them here?
Britain led the way globally in intelligence gathering and infiltration from the Cromwellian conquests on why? Because despite what you say that they were cordially invited guests...they actually ahd extreme difficulty bringing the country under control....why? Because it was a colony. Ireland did not behave like Scotland or Wales nor was it governed like them, why? Because there was mass resistence to British rule here and martial law was a daily occurance.

Even the British are beginging to disagree with your revisionist babble. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/oct/19/end-myths-britains-imperial-past

For further reading I recommend http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/501

And even the British military admit that the reason for their presence here is for geopolitical reasons http://books.google.ie/books?id=ZhAXt8bPF8MC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=geopolitical+strategy+anglo+irish&source=bl&ots=ld1lxbLMgB&sig=S8fokAbA3qdgiypsM9DgbZIQRdQ&hl=en&ei=aoGgTuL3E8HQhAei0rz4BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=geopolitical%20strategy%20anglo%20irish&f=false

The GUARDIAN? Oh dear. Is this what the barstoolers have become?
Whatever happened to taking ones manifesto from marxist sources?
For shame.

Worth noting that Cromwell did not exist in the time periods covered in either of your links.
Better luck next time.
Well done on invoking Eoghan Harris, the fallback in all straight from script SF-IRA online debate responses.
Baron Adams and the British intelligence mole currently Running fror President in the 26 counties will be so proud.

SleepAtNight

goldie fish wrote: »

The GUARDIAN? Oh dear. Is this what the barstoolers have become?
Whatever happened to taking ones manifesto from marxist sources?
For shame.

Worth noting that Cromwell did not exist in the time periods covered in either of your links.
Better luck next time.
Well done on invoking Eoghan Harris, the fallback in all straight from script SF-IRA online debate responses.
Baron Adams and the British intelligence mole currently Running fror President in the 26 counties will be so proud.

The Guardian was an example that even mainstream British attitudes are changing.

Of course the royalists were going to be chosen over the Puritan Cromwell Parlimentarians, the Irish population was mostly Catholic and feared him. To call him republican is a great diservice to republicanism seeing as Cromwell behaved as a military dictator.

But have you any idea why the Cromwells England, and Elizabeth I England before that and Henry VIII and before that needed to control and invest so much in keeping Ireland under military control?
Oh and the book on geopolitics does mention the Cromwellian period...right back to Henry II in fact and the growing need from then on for Ireland to be brought under English influence.

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

Why ?

The nationalist and unionist population seem to have more pressing issues (this is from 2009) :

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/poll-sinn-feins-martin-mcguinness-is-northern-irelands-top-minister-14580892.html

The unionist and republican population in the 6 counties. Which for 30 years had a very real chance of being blown to bits by McGuinness' comrades/former comrades or his enemies.
What could POSSIBLY make them think that McGuinness, who did play his part in bringing a level of peace to the 6 counties, is a half way near decent politician??? Hmmm.... maybe it's because he played a part in removing the threat of being blown up on any given day??

I can't remember where i saw this but i remember seeing something that either statistically speaking or for definite, that there is not a household in the 6 counties that did not suffer a bereavement/injury or personally know of someone who had in the 30 years of the troubles.



It's time you faced facts Morlar. There is a vastly different mindset between the North and the Republic. Even McGuinness himself refers to the 26 counties as 'Down here'......


He won't get elected, so the point is moot.

Tarzan7

SleepAtNight wrote: »

In fairness when push came to shove it was Marty who was firing a gun in the Bogside while our so-called army pitched tents like boy scouts.

In fairness, the Irish army from top to bottom wanted to go in and made it known to the 'Soldiers of Destiny', the great Fianna Fail at the time. But because the rotten lairs of the state were only out to protect their rotten, corrupt, cronyist Catholic church little fiefdom, the army were kept "standing idly by" despite having world opinion, especially America, in support of them. And hence we had 25 years of the troubles.

Tarzan7

gatecrash wrote: »

The unionist and republican population in the 6 counties. Which for 30 years had a very real chance of being blown to bits by McGuinness' comrades/former comrades or his enemies.

Do you post this from Gay Mitchell's campaign office, as clearly like Mitchell and the rest of the West Brit pack you hypocritically ignore the hundred of British murder's carried out during the troubles.

I can't remember where i saw this but i remember seeing something that either statistically speaking or for definite, that there is not a household in the 6 counties that did not suffer a bereavement/injury or personally know of someone who had in the 30 years of the troubles.

Possibly so, but of course you ignore the British contribution to the whole scenario - British forces murdered 363 and colluded with the loyalists to murder over a 1,000, but that didn't bother the British army groupies when the Queen, who is technically the head of the British forces, visited here only a few months ago.

It's time you faced facts Morlar. There is a vastly different mindset between the North and the Republic. Even McGuinness himself refers to the 26 counties as 'Down here'......


He won't get elected, so the point is moot.

People refer to say, Cork or Kerry as "down there" because.....they are down there !!!!

And people refer to Derry and Donegal as "up there" because.....they are up there Einstein !!!!

Buit I suppose a Gay Mitchell fan or unionist troll would probably use the London prefix before Derry

gizmo555

gizmo555 wrote: »

Mr McGuinness has just been confronted by Brian Dobson on the Six-One News with an interview he gave to Michael O'Higgins for Hot Press in the 80s.

This interview is now available on the RTE website, and for the record, here is what McGuinness said:

First Dobson put it to him that "What you've said is you don't stand over and you've never stood over the killing of members of our Gardai or Defence Forces by the IRA." McGuinness replied "Absolutely".

Dobson then read from the 1985 Hot Press interview this reply to a question as to whether Gardai and Defence Forces personnel patrolling the border were in any danger from the IRA. McGuinness replied that they were not, and I quote, " . . . except in certain circumstances like in Ballinamore, where IRA volunteers felt they were going to be shot dead and were defending themselves against armed Gardai and soldiers."

There you have it, from the horse's mouth. So far as McGuinness was concerned, the killing of Pte Kelly and Gda Sheehan was justified.

cyrusdvirus

Tarzan7 wrote: »

Do you post this from Gay Mitchell's campaign office, as clearly like Mitchell and the rest of the West Brit pack you hypocritically ignore the hundred of British murder's carried out during the troubles.


Possibly so, but of course you ignore the British contribution to the whole scenario - British forces murdered 363 and colluded with the loyalists to murder over a 1,000, but that didn't bother the British army groupies when the Queen, who is technically the head of the British forces, visited here only a few months ago.


People refer to say, Cork or Kerry as "down there" because.....they are down there !!!!

And people refer to Derry and Donegal as "up there" because.....they are up there Einstein !!!!

Buit I suppose a Gay Mitchell fan or unionist troll would probably use the London prefix before Derry

You, with a grand total of 11 invective filled posts to your name are calling me a troll??

Riiiiight.

By the way, the 363 deaths at the hands of the security forces include the killing of terrorists.

The innocent victims of the security forces are probably spinning in their graves to be associated with murdering scum like Séamus McElwaine and others.

goldie fish

gatecrash wrote: »

You, with a grand total of 11 invective filled posts to your name are calling me a troll??

Riiiiight.

By the way, the 363 deaths at the hands of the security forces include the killing of terrorists.

The innocent victims of the security forces are probably spinning in their graves to be associated with murdering scum like Séamus McElwaine and others.

I think tarzan is another shinnerbot.

Morlar

goldie fish wrote: »

I think tarzan is another shinnerbot.

What would that make you ?

goldie fish

Morlar wrote: »

What would that make you ?

Someone whose opinions do not have to be sanctioned and approved by party HQ.
i.e I can think for myself.

Morlar

I took this on Friday 21st October 2011, minutes after arriving at the GPO, Dublin, it is Martin McGuinness at the steps of the GPO meeting the relatives of the 1916 signatories. An event that recieved almost 0% media coverage.

SleepAtNight

Morlar wrote: »

I took this on Friday 21st October 2011, minutes after arriving at the GPO, Dublin, it is Martin McGuinness at the steps of the GPO meeting the relatives of the 1916 signatories. An event that recieved almost 0% media coverage.

Course it didn't. 1916 and our republican past are something the 26 County state and those in the media establishment want us to forget about and detach ourselves from. True republicanism is a threat to those running the southern state and the people in big business really pulling the strings. If things keep going the way they're going we'll be sending an official apology over to London in 50 years saying sorry for the Rising. In fact it may come sooner than thet when ya hear the likes of Mitchell talking about the Commonwealth. Those that run the southern state view Irish sovereignty as some sort of throw away toy, after play time is finished it's tossed aside.
No one should have been surprised at the surrender to the IMF last year. This is the same state that views full Irish sovereignty, for all the people if Ireland north and south to govern themselves, as illegitimate. This is the same state that has continually since the early 70's encouraged its people with the help of the media to surrender more and more sovereignty to Brussels through different EEC and EU treaty's. Lisbon 2 was a glaring example of the contempt with which the southern establishment holds for its own citizens. The notion that that state should call itself a republic is repugnant.
The state is in fact the enemy of the people and although I was overly harsh on holding the defence forces and Gards personally responsible for certain actions, and lack of, they really are only reflecting state policy.

Don't worry though, when the centenary comes around there will be plenty of back slapping and wrap the green flag around me nonsense with the tragic, and for us, the utterly humiliating fact that these people in power haven't a clue of what being a republic means.

Spiderman123

gatecrash wrote: »

The innocent victims of the security forces are probably spinning in their graves to be associated with murdering scum like Séamus McElwaine and others.

These innocent victims that you mention wouldn't be in their graves if the were killed by those murdering scum the RUC and British army would they professor.

Manic Moran

goldie fish wrote: »

I think tarzan is another shinnerbot.

I don't know, but the 'duplicate' matching software is ringing alarm bells right now. We shall look into the details.

savagecabbages

Are there any British Army personnel here and how did they feel about Martin McGuinness acting as deputy first minister? Did many resign when that happened?

I personally thing there's much narrow mindedness being shown by both sides of this argument. I'm still to make up my mind on whether or not the thought of McGuinness as president would be a good or bad thing for the country, but one things for sure, if the people of the north (both sides) were prepared to accept Paisley and McGuinness as their leaders and move forward, there might be a lesson for us all here.

There seems to be some very strong anti Sinn Fein sentiment here over what might have happened before, but didn't Sinn Fein put a huge amount behind themselves to go into power with the Unionists? Likewise the Unionists went into power with Sinn Fein, and would have a lot more reason than anyone in the south to hate Sinn Fein, yet they opened the door after looking at the bigger picture.

edit: Just to ad, i'm not having a go at either the Sinn Fein bots or the anti- Sinn Fein bots i'm genuinely interested in hearing peoples opinion on this. Not just 'hes a murdering scumbag' off the shelf comment, or 'hes a national hero' retort.

vampire of kilmainham

savagecabbages wrote: »

Coming from a laymans point of view, what role exactly does the president have in 'commanding' the defence forces? I'm assuming its more of a ceremonial role??

I guess members of the defence forces are there to serve the state, and if a president is fairly elected by the people of the state, they must serve under said president.

Are you guys told to leave politics at the door when signing up?

im ex army and you do have a vote when your a member of the defence forces but your not supposed to discuss politics or put your government down in any way or speak ill of any of it's members as you are serving them and it can be considerd as mutiney the president is commander and chief of the defence forces and is there to put the final signiture to any changes been made within the defence forces but she dosent have a direct involvement in day to day running of the forces thats for the minester of defence and chief of staff and his assistents

cyrusdvirus

Spiderman123 wrote: »

These innocent victims that you mention wouldn't be in their graves if the were killed by those murdering scum the RUC and British army would they professor.

Leaving aside the typo's in your post, lets finish off this conversation, shall we.

Me wrote:

The British Army would not have been on the streets if it were not for the republican and Loyalist terror groups running around the place blowing people up, would they. It might be worth looking into that figure of 363 and see how many of them were terrorists

Knuckle Dragging Sinn Fein Supporter (comes complete with authentic accent translation) wrote:

But dem moorderin brits, dey is in ower cuntry. de lads in da RA, dey're heeeroz, cos dey are gerrin rid of da brits ou' of oirelan

At this stage my head explodes because I have realised. yet again, that expecting a reasoned debate with an idiot is an exercise in futility.


Take a leaf out of Morlar's book. His opinion is vastly different to mine but has kept reasonable and civilised, and I've enjoyed the conversation with him. Probably because he has more than 2 brain cells to rub together.

Now stop trying to derail the thread, there's a good lad.