Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Morlar

shaneybaby wrote: »

Proof?

Any balanced, rational individual reading this thread already has proof enough that Martin McGuinness life has been under threat throughout the peace process.

Acknowledging this fact does not imply support or approval it merely is acknowledgment of the reality of the world we live in.

Anyone so vehemently biased so as to reject that reality such as you do here is not really worth bothering with.

The proof would be in the death threats from dissidents. Any assessment of the situation based on an awareness of the different factions starting points, the different elements involved and where they were moved to, would also bear this out. In addition to the death threats from dissidents that is.

Bizarrely this is not suffice for you.

My view is that you are either
a) being disingenous (in that you know full well his life WAS and IS under threat - in which case as stated you are a 'classy guy')
or
b) you genuinely believe that despite the death threats etc Martin McGuinness life was not under threat throughout the Northern Ireland Peace Process.

I am not sure which of those (a or b) is the worst scenario.

As stated- discussing this point with you is harmful to mental health so I am happy to leave it there for others to decide.

I know my view, I know your view and I am happy in the knowledge that any balanced, honest, rational person will have a view which will be based on reality, unlike yours.

shaneybaby

Morlar wrote: »

Any balanced, rational individual reading this thread already has proof enough that Martin McGuinness life has been under threat throughout the peace process. .....

So you believe british newspapers that his life was under threat but not an irish garda commissioner that he was head of the army council? strange.

Morlar

shaneybaby wrote: »

So you believe british newspapers that his life was under threat but not an irish garda commissioner that he was head of the army council? strange.

I could ask you the same question in reverse - if both of those things were equal. Which they are not.

One is an accusation - the question is 'do you believe an accusation without proof'.

The other is a death threat made by dissidents - the question is 'do you believe a person's life has been threatened if they are in receipt of a death threat from dissidents'.

Not exactly the same thing now is it ?

This is what I meant by harmful to mental health.

shaneybaby

Morlar wrote: »

I could ask you the same question in reverse - if both of those things were equal. Which they are not.

One is an accusation - the question is 'do you believe an accusation without proof'.

The other is a death threat made by dissidents - the question is 'do you believe a person's life has been threatened if they are in receipt of a death threat from dissidents'.

Not exactly the same thing now is it ?

This is what I meant by harmful to mental health.

Again. Where is the proof that McGuinness received death threats?

if it's just because of what was reported and said to a paper then in todays Irish Times.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1020/breaking31.html

Why did McGuinness meet with a killer on the run and not alert the Gardaí?

In a paper. there is yours proof.
as you said yourself "Proof = common sense".

You can't have it both ways.

Morlar

An Allegation is not the same thing as a Death Threat.

shaneybaby

Morlar wrote: »

An Allegation is not the same thing as a Death Threat.

exactly.

An alleged death threat.

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

An Allegation is not the same thing as a Death Threat.

I could be wrong, but i think Shaneybaby is saying that you or me could ring up a newspaper and make a death threat, whereas a report by the G.C to the cabinet would carry a bit more weight

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

I could be wrong, but i think Shaneybaby is saying that you or me could ring up a newspaper and make a death threat, whereas a report by the G.C to the cabinet would carry a bit more weight

Do you think Martin McGuinness life has been under threat throughout the peace process ?

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

Do you think Martin McGuinness life has been under threat throughout the peace process ?

I don't know.

Certainly not throughout the entire length of the process.

But anyone living in the North had their lives under some form of threat until the peace process became public.

And some people, who may stray a bit far from the legal side of the street still have their lives under threat, both from McGuinness' colleagues and also his enemies.

Morlar

Here are a few sources to consider :


http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=58697

Martin McGuinness receives new death threats
Sinn Fein's Chief Negotiator Martin McGuinness has today been warned that he has had new death threats issued against him.

Police contacted the Mid-Ulster MP to warn him that dissident republican's, opposed to the party's current strategy, had threatened his life, just days before the party is due to meet in Dublin to make a decision on their policing policy in Northern Ireland.
...
Today's threats are just in addition to a number of others received by the Sinn Fein leadership in recent times due to the party's plans to reconsider their policy on policing in order to allow the current political process to move forward in an attempt to achieve an all-party power-sharing executive, which is due to be elected on March 7.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/wikileaks-sinn-fein-deeply-alarmed-by-martin-mcguinness-death-threat-16006470.html

A dissident republican threat to kill Martin McGuinness sparked serious alarm within Sinn Fein, a leaked cable reveals.
...
“He was particularly concerned about a recent threat against the life of DFM Martin McGuinness,” she noted.

During their discussion, Mr Adams also raised concerns about attacks on party offices and homes of senior members, including Mitchel McLaughlin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7995834.stm

"Over the past 24 hours I have been contacted by the PSNI and told of the existence of a threat to my life. It is believed this threat comes from a so-called dissident grouping," Mr McGuinness said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8015881.stm

Martin McGuinness was told of the threat from dissident republicans by police within the past 24 hours.

Speaking on Friday at Free Derry Corner, the Sinn Fein MP said he had a job to do and that he intended to do it.

Mr McGuinness also said his wife and children had been verbally abused by "mouthpieces" in the street.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/06/michael-stone-fails-overturn-convictions

Loyalist killer Michael Stone has failed in his attempt to overturn convictions for trying to assassinate Sinn Féin leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7995834.stm

An office used by Sinn Féin in Londonderry has been damaged in an arson attack.

Sometime between Saturday night and Sunday morning a flammable liquid was poured into the office at Rath Mor shopping centre and set alight.

There was smoke damage throughout as well as extensive damage to a corridor.

"If those who carried out this attack think they were striking a blow for Irish freedom then they are deluding themselves," SF's Paul Fleming said.

The party's chairman in Derry continued: "The only thing that they succeeded in destroying last night was iconic pictures of Bobby Sands' election victory announcement, portraits of the hunger strikers and other republican memorabilia.

"It is no coincidence that this attack was carried out on Easter Saturday night with the hope that it would disrupt Sunday's commemoration of the sacrifice paid by our patriot dead."

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

Here are a few sources to consider :


http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=58697



http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/wikileaks-sinn-fein-deeply-alarmed-by-martin-mcguinness-death-threat-16006470.html



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7995834.stm





http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8015881.stm




http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/06/michael-stone-fails-overturn-convictions



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7995834.stm

Ah here.... Using Michael Stone??

That guy is a freakin lunatic!! You have idiots like him in every country in the world.


And as I said, I do believe that at times his life may have been under threat. But not throughout the entire process. A process that, during which, the Garda Commissioner states that he was actively involved in the IRA

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

Ah here.... Using Michael Stone??

That guy is a freakin lunatic!! You have idiots like him in every country in the world.


And as I said, I do believe that at times his life may have been under threat. But not throughout the entire process. A process that, during which, the Garda Commissioner states that he was actively involved in the IRA

So you do accept that his life has been under threat throughout the peace process ? Hardly worth the forum pages it has taken to get this far wouldn't you agree?

Your point is that the word 'throughout the peace process' should be edited to say 'at several points during the peace process'.

Seems a bit of a worthless & pedantic exception to make in the circumstances, no ?

IF (hypothetical scenario I know) IF Gay Mitchells Life had been threatened in this manner by dissident republicans - would you be equally pedantic in acknowleding this ?

shaneybaby

Morlar wrote: »

So you do accept that his life has been under threat throughout the peace process ? Hardly worth the forum pages it has taken to get this far wouldn't you agree?

Your point is that the word 'throughout the peace process' should be edited to say 'at several points during the peace process'.

Seems a bit of a worthless & pedantic exception to make in the circumstances, no ?

IF (hypothetical scenario I know) IF Gay Mitchells Life had been threatened in this manner by dissident republicans - would you be equally pedantic in acknowleding this ?

A guy threathened me in hurling match only but a month ago. Do i put that down on my CV??

The point is how can you believe the words of some random reporter but not believe the (former) head of the Republic's Gardaí?

Morlar

shaneybaby wrote: »

A guy threathened me in hurling match only but a month ago. Do i put that down on my CV??

The point is how can you believe the words of some random reporter but not believe the (former) head of the Republic's Gardaí?

If the 'guy at the hurling match' was a dissident republican, part of a group who have murdered PSNI And British army personel left and right, then - yes I'd be sure to make a note of that alright.

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

So you do accept that his life has been under threat throughout the peace process ? Hardly worth the forum pages it has taken to get this far wouldn't you agree?

Your point is that the word 'throughout the peace process' should be edited to say 'at several points during the peace process'.

Seems a bit of a worthless & pedantic exception to make in the circumstances, no ?

IF (hypothetical scenario I know) IF Gay Mitchells Life had been threatened in this manner by dissident republicans - would you be equally pedantic in acknowleding this ?

So you DO acknowledge that McGuinness was a member of the IRA during the peace process?

See? I can cherry pick words and take non-refutation as acquiescence too!

shaneybaby

Morlar wrote: »

If the 'guy at the hurling match' was a dissident republican, part of a group who have murdered PSNI And British army personel left and right, then - yes I'd be sure to make a note of that alright.

He had blood streaming down his face and had half a hurley in each hand, he could have killed half the crowd with that alone. We both know that i'd get a lot less protection from the lunatic on a hurling field than Mr McGuinness would from the murderers he used to lead.

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

So you DO acknowledge that McGuinness was a member of the IRA during the peace process?

See? I can cherry pick words and take non-refutation as acquiescence too!

I have said elsewhere - I do not know when he left the IRA. Neither do you. Nor do I care. It is simply non relevant. We all know he was in the IRA, the exact dates are not the point here. Having said that I highly, highly doubt he was in the IRA into the mid 1990's.

It would take some convincing to establish that. Oh, I forgot we are not putting forward evidence here, right ? 'Allegation=Proof', huh ? In that case I allege you stole my lawnmower in 1978. Allegation = Proof right ?

All of which is notwithstanding that - it's not the point at all. The point is that we have gone round in circles for the last 2 pages of this thread for the simple reason that a minority refuse to acknowledge the fact that McGuinness has placed his life at risk for the peace process.

This wasn't even highlighted in the way a candidate like Gay Mitchell would highlight it, or Norris (I have risked my life for IRELAND' kind of a way) it was simply mentioned - in passing.

Acknowledging this fact is not going to misinterpreted by anyone as a sign of support or approval ffs.

The fact that those in opposition to McGuinness' bid for Presidency have such a ridiculously hard time acknowledging basic facts is very telling of the irrational resistance and bias that is present in this campaign in my view. It is also clear in the media coverage. The fact as I see it are that there is a virulent anti-repubilcan section of Irish society who would prefer the northern nationalist community just fell off the map, ceased to exsist, things would be neater and more convenient then. Instead we have to face up to the fact that the state they lived in, at the time of Martin McGuinness joining the IRA was a viciously sectarian state, where repression and murder (not to mention collusion with sectarian death squads) were a regular occurence.

The context to that conflict is something that people have an issue with, to accept the fact that previously held 'black and white' preconceptions are not adequate for this particular situation.

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

I have said elsewhere - I do not know when he left the IRA. Neither do you. Nor do I care. It is simply non relevant. We all know he was in the IRA, the exact dates are not the point here. Having said that I highly, highly doubt he was in the IRA into the mid 1990's.

It would take some convincing to establish that. Oh, I forgot we are not putting forward evidence here, right ? 'Allegation=Proof', huh ? In that case I allege you stole my lawnmower in 1978. Allegation = Proof right ?

All of which is notwithstanding that - it's not the point at all. The point is that we have gone round in circles for the last 2 pages of this thread for the simple reason that a minority refuse to acknowledge the fact that McGuinness has placed his life at risk for the peace process.

This wasn't even highlighted in the way a candidate like Gay Mitchell would highlight it, or Norris (I have risked my life for IRELAND' kind of a way) it was simply mentioned - in passing.

Acknowledging this fact is not going to misinterpreted by anyone as a sign of support or approval ffs.

The fact that those in opposition to McGuinness' bid for Presidency have such a ridiculously hard time acknowledging basic facts is very telling of the irrational resistance and bias that is present in this campaign in my view. It is also clear in the media coverage. The fact as I see it are that there is a virulent anti-repubilcan section of Irish society who would prefer the northern nationalist community just fell off the map, ceased to exsist, things would be neater and more convenient then. Instead we have to face up to the fact that the state they lived in, at the time of Martin McGuinness joining the IRA was a viciously sectarian state, where repression and murder (not to mention collusion with sectarian death squads) were a regular occurence.

The context to that conflict is something that people have an issue with, to accept the fact that previously held 'black and white' preconceptions are not adequate for this particular situation.

The highlighted bit is the crux of the matter. When McGuinness left the IRA is HUGELY relevant!!

I know 3D world people who are saying McGuinness left the IRA 30 odd years ago and sure didn't we have Presidents and Taoisigh who were a lot less removed by time than 30 years.

And yet the Garda Commissioner states that it is a lot more recent than that.

Now, i don't know about you, but if someone running to be the head of state can't tell the truth about when they left an illegal organisation, then what else are they hiding the truth about??

And I am well aware that the IRA so called Army Council cannot just go to their PC and print out an active roster, but one of their leaders would be fairly well known.

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

The highlighted bit is the crux of the matter. When McGuinness left the IRA is HUGELY relevant!!

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

belfasttelegraph.co.uk
Poll: Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness is Northern Ireland's top minister

By Noel McAdam and Rebeca Black
Monday, 30 November 2009

Martin McGuinness was today revealed as Northern Ireland’s most respected politician – signalling a remarkable transformation from IRA leader to respected political figurehead.

According to the results of a Belfast Telegraph poll published today, the senior Sinn Fein figure is viewed as by far the top-performing minister in the Northern Ireland Executive.

Even unionists responding to the survey had praise for McGuinness’s performance as Deputy First Minister – contributing to a lead of 20 percentage points over First Minister Peter Robinson.

Today’s survey is the first in a regular series of exclusive |monthly polls which will test the temperature of post-devolution Northern Ireland.

Belfast Telegraph editor Mike Gilson said the results “suggest that we are maybe moving into a different phase in which politicians are judged as much on their performance in the here and now as on their history”.

“If so, that has to be seen as a positive step,” he added.

The Deputy First Minister is viewed as by far the top-performing minister in the Stormont Executive, according to the survey carried out in association with Inform Communications.

The Mid-Ulster MP is now seen as the “most impressive” minister of the power-sharing team — polling more than double the next highest, party colleague Michelle Gildernew.

Once widely regarded as a hate-figure by unionists because of his Provisional IRA background, the senior Sinn Fein man now rates surprisingly well among Protestants, achieving the same score (11%) as Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey.

And he left his fellow First Minister Peter Robinson trailing by 20 percentage points on both sides of the community.

The poll reflects an astonishing transformation in the image of Mr McGuinness who emerged from the ranks of the IRA in Londonderry in the early 1970s, including a spell in prison in the Republic, to become Sinn Fein’s chief negotiator during Good Friday Agreement negotiations in 1998 and later at St Andrews in 2006.

Today’s survey is the first in a regular Belfast Telegraph/Inform Communication series of polls which will test the temperature of post-devolution Northern Ireland.

Telegraph editor Mike Gilson said: “This poll is a snapshot of course, but it is a very interesting snapshot.

“It suggests that we maybe moving into a different phase of political life here in which politicians are judged as much on their performance in the here and now as on their history.

“If so, that has to be seen as a positive step. If the message is that some people are recognising that politicians can begin the journey from conflict towards statesmanship it is to be welcomed.

“If the message is that our politicians must do more to leave their historical baggage at the door of the debating chamber that too is positive.”

In contrast the Belfast Telegraph/Inform Communications survey put DUP leader Robinson on just 7% — Mr McGuinness scored 27% — with a zero rating among Catholics.

Sinn Fein’s Agriculture Minister is in second place overall with 10%, again with a significant approval level from Protestants (8%).

The DUP’s best performing minister is Arlene Foster with 9% of those surveyed endorsing her track record at Enterprise, Trade and Industry.

Party leader Mr Robinson was in a disappointing fourth place, behind SDLP Social Development Minister and leadership candidate Margaret Ritchie. A DUP spokesman said: “Obviously the DUP is aware of the sort of issues that have been raised by this poll and even before the poll was released our leader Peter Robinson was moving to address some of these issues.”

However, despite Mr McGuinness’s popularity, Sinn Fein remained tightlipped last night and refused to comment.

Two-and-a-half years after the four-party administration took up office the ratings for most ministers are poor.

In some cases the percentages achieved by a few of the ministers — among them the DUP’s Environment Minister Edwin Poots and Culture Minister Nelson McCausland, as well as Sinn Fein junior minister Gerry Kelly — are close to or below the poll’s 3% margin of error.

A sample of 500 people were questioned earlier this month and asked to declare as Protestants, Catholics, or other. Mr McGuinness also scored highest with the latter (21%).

There is contrasting, if unsurprising, news for Sinn Fein as Education Minister Caitriona Ruane is seen as the minister who has most disappointed people.

A total of 24% of Catholics, as well as 39% of Protestants and 19% of others, contributed to Ms Ruane’s disapproval rating of 31%, almost double the next most disappointing, Mr Robinson.

His DUP colleague, Finance Minister Sammy Wilson, and Health Minister Michael McGimpsey also have ‘most disappointed’ people, with the Ulster Unionist Health Minister scoring almost equally between Catholics and Protestants.

Meanwhile, three-quarters of those polled (75%) say the expenses scandals of the last two years have damaged the way they view politicians — with most of the remainder saying it made no difference.

And on the other controversy over double-jobbing, almost the same level of respondents (71%) — including 73% of Protestants and 68% of Catholics — said they are not content for Assembly members to also be MPs at Westminster.

eyescreamcone

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???

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.