Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

savagecabbages

gatecrash wrote: »

Savage, i was being deliberately facetious. It was a reply to your not being 100% sure that the IRA were responsible for the murders of Private Kelly and Garda Recruit Sheehan.

I know what you were doing, you were deliberately trying to manipulate what I said about the Tidey incident to fabricate a point of view for me about a completely different incident during the troubles (the Eniskillen bombing) and make me look like a fool.

Thanks for that, but I don't need words put into my mouth. I'm well able to state my opinion on something if I want.

cyrusdvirus

savagecabbages wrote: »

I know what you were doing, you were deliberately trying to manipulate what I said about the Tidey incident to fabricate a point of view for me about a completely different incident during the troubles (the Eniskillen bombing) and make me look like a fool.

Thanks for that, but I don't need words put into my mouth. I'm well able to state my opinion on something if I want.

you don't need my help for that...

Edit for clarity

The point i was making, and still stand by, was that the IRA are ultimately responsible for the deaths of the 2 men. Their actions in kidnapping Mr. Tidey, and opening fire on Private Kelly, and Garda Recruit Sheehan ultimately resulted in the deaths of 2 servents of the state.
For you to maintain that the IRA are not 100% responsible for the 2 deaths at Ballinamore is akin to you saying that the IRA are not 100% responsible for the deaths at Enniskillen.

savagecabbages

gizmo555 wrote: »

Spare me the condescension please. You posted here claiming it was "generally accepted" that Gda Sheehan was killed by friendly fire. When you're pressed on this, it turns out your assertion boils down to you know someone who knows something and the information is "out there". Is your username "xflyer" a partial anagram of the "X-Files", by any chance?

For what it's worth, by the way, I served in the FCA myself from 1979 to 1984 and I know perfectly well how things were back then, thanks very much.

It is generally accepted that that may have happened. Generally accepted by joe public anyway... Obviously not generally accepted in this forum, but across the nation.
I don't know how people can sit on one side of the fence as its never been proven either way what heppened. It seems we have three camps here. The IRA did it camp, the friendly fire camp, and the dont know what actually happened camp...

gizmo555

savagecabbages wrote: »

It is generally accepted that that may have happened. Generally accepted by joe public anyway... Obviously not generally accepted in this forum, but across the nation.

Well, I'll have to give you credit for greater insight into the mind of Joe Public than I have - however, this is what xflyer wrote, on the basis of no evidence except for some vague hand waving about people he once knew in RTE and his service in the FCA.

xflyer wrote: »

On the other hand it's now generally accepted that the Garda was killed by 'friendly fire'.

(my emphasis)

goldie fish

gizmo555 wrote: »

Well, I'll have to give you credit for greater insight into the mind of Joe Public than I have - however, this is what xflyer wrote, on the basis of no evidence except for some vague hand waving about people he once knew in RTE and his service in the FCA.

(my emphasis)

A lie.

Tarzan7

gatecrash wrote: »

you don't need my help for that...

Edit for clarity

The point i was making, and still stand by, was that the IRA are ultimately responsible for the deaths of the 2 men. Their actions in kidnapping Mr. Tidey, and opening fire on Private Kelly, and Garda Recruit Sheehan ultimately resulted in the deaths of 2 servents of the state.
For you to maintain that the IRA are not 100% responsible for the 2 deaths at Ballinamore is akin to you saying that the IRA are not 100% responsible for the deaths at Enniskillen.

And the 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.

goldie fish

Tarzan7 wrote: »

And the 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.

Another SF "bot" arrives reading from the approved SF/IRA script I see.

The queen was never jailed in THIS STATE for terrorist offences, and the Queen, last time I checked, is not running for president.

Have you anything that isnt in the pre-approved SF "statements for use on numerous internet forum"

Tarzan7

goldie fish wrote: »

Another SF "bot" arrives reading from the approved SF/IRA script I see.

The queen was never jailed in THIS STATE for terrorist offences, and the Queen, last time I checked, is not running for president.

Have you anything that isnt in the pre-approved SF "statements for use on numerous internet forum"

Oh I see, so someone heading an organisation respondcible for the murders of innocent people are objectionable to British army groupies only when they run for President ?

But you raise a good point there, maybe as head of the British forces she should havd been charged with terrorist offences - something undoubtably her forces are guilty of.

cyrusdvirus

Tarzan7 wrote: »

And the 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.

We are talking about the murder of a serving member of the Defence Forces, and the murder/death of a recruit in An Garda Siochana. Quit trying to derail the thread with the usual BA/PSNI/AGS/PDF = bad, IRA/INLA/SCUMBAG TERRORIST ORGANISATION = good, ****e please.

goldie fish

Tarzan7 wrote: »

Oh I see, so someone heading an organisation respondcible for the murders of innocent people are objectionable to British army groupies only when they run for President ?

But you raise a good point there, maybe as head of the British forces she should havd been charged with terrorist offences - something undoubtably her forces are guilty of.

So you don't have anything other than the approved SF script.

So you are admitting that Martin McGuinness is head of the PIRA?

Morlar

goldie fish wrote: »

So you don't have anything other than the approved SF script.

So you are admitting that Martin McGuinness is head of the PIRA?

You are making an allegation that the most recent Deputy First Minister of N.I, and previously NI Minister for Education is currently the head of a defunct paramilitary organisation.

You are in some sort of mini fantasy land of your own on that one there.


It's a ridiculous allegation to make and you don't have a single molecule of proof. You know it, I know it. Everyone reading this thread knows it too.

You are simply mudslinging against a political candidate without a shred of anything to back it up.

All of which conveniently ignores the simple undeniable fact (not fantasy allegation but Fact) that Martin McGuinness has been a pivotal player in the peace process for the last approx 20 years, risking his life in the process.

As regards scripts, the allegation could just as easily be made in your direction that you don't have anything not in the Conor Cruise O'Brien/Eoghan Harris anti-republican script there yourself.

shaneybaby

Morlar wrote: »

All of which conveniently ignores the simple undeniable fact (not fantasy allegation but Fact) that Martin McGuinness has been a pivotal player in the peace process for the last approx 20 years, risking his life in the process.[/B]

Where has it been proven he risked his life??

goldie fish

Morlar wrote: »

You are making an allegation that the most recent Deputy First Minister of N.I, and previously NI Minister for Education is currently the head of a defunct paramilitary organisation.

You are in some sort of mini fantasy land of your own on that one there.


It's a ridiculous allegation to make and you don't have a single molecule of proof. You know it, I know it. Everyone reading this thread knows it too.

You are simply mudslinging against a political candidate without a shred of anything to back it up.

All of which conveniently ignores the simple undeniable fact (not fantasy allegation but Fact) that Martin McGuinness has been a pivotal player in the peace process for the last approx 20 years, risking his life in the process.

As regards scripts, the allegation could just as easily be made in your direction that you don't have anything not in the Conor Cruise O'Brien/Eoghan Harris anti-republican script there yourself.

Minister for Re-Education. Succeeded in revising history.
Before he took over we knew the PIRA were terrorists, now it looks like they were the legion of mary...
If Marty wasn't on the PIRA "Army Council"(I know he wasn't in charge and I know who was-but thats another story) why did the British Government consider he was the man to negotiate with?

Surely if he wasnt on the army council they would be better off having negotiated the ceasefire with someone who was?

I am anti SF/IRA not because of something I read in a tabloid rag, but because my friend and colleague was killed by men which Wee Marty considers good mates. So much so he visited them twice while they were on the run.

As for being a pivotal Player in the peace process, Do you normally congratulate a Wifebeater for his work to end domestic abuse because he stopped beating up his wife?
Do you congratulate Rapists for helping stop sexual crime because they stop raping people?
Do you congratulate Northern Irish bank robbers... Oh wait, I know the answer to that, You elect them.

goldie fish

shaneybaby wrote: »

Where has it been proven he risked his life??

Every time he picked up an armalite, or even his trusty Thompson Machine Gun, he was at risk of being shot by the Security forces.
See Derry, 1972.

Morlar

shaneybaby wrote: »

Where has it been proven he risked his life??

Are you honestly going to try to make the case that he hasn't ? Is this something you genuinely believe?


Proof = common sense maybe ?

The multiple death threats he has recieved over the years. Including after he stood beside Peter Robinson and condemned Republican dissidents as 'Traitors to Ireland'.

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://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/death-threat-made-against-martin-mcguinness-718043.html

Stovepipe

Hi Morlar,
As recently as 2005, the then Garda Commissioner briefed the Cabinet to the effect that Martin McGuinness was still on the IRA Army Council.This was stated on RTE within the last two or three weeks by a former Minister for Justice. Now, I'd doubt if the GC would have the nerve to lie to an entire Cabinet. I also doubt if an ex-Minister would make such a statement without fear, unless it were true. Just because PIRA have allegedly gone away (and I don't believe that to be the case), I don't believe that the PIRA Army Council has gone away either. It may have changed shape and or titles but I believe it is still in charge of PIRA personnel, who are still up to their necks in organised crime (border smuggling, fuel tampering, revenue fraud,etc), intimidation (McCartney killing and subsequent events) robbery (Northern Bank) and murder (boy killed in Monaghan farmyard).
To me, MMG is too close to the bone for the present generation of voters and it's too soon, timewise.

regards
Stovepipe

celticbest67

Michael Collins was once called a Terrorist..... he was leader of Óglaigh na hÉireann.

In every conflict a spin will be put on things to make one side seem worse than the other, IMO the Biggest terrorist of the Troubles was Margaret Hilda Thatcher but she does not get have the stick Martin McGuinness seems to.

If it wasn't for the likes of Martin McGuinness standing up against enforced Loyalist rule then the Nationalist community in the 6 counties would not be in the position of equality they are today.

People do what needs to be done at the time, now time has moved on and so have the majority of people.

Morlar

Stovepipe wrote: »

To me, MMG is too close to the bone for the present generation of voters and it's too soon, timewise.

You do not speak for the present generation be they voters or not.

I think 20 yrs of peacemaking is 'long enough', people saying it's 'too soon' are just hiding the fact that they don't ever want to see it. In fact personally, I think 5 yrs of peacemaking would have been 'long enough'. 1 year even.

The glaring double standard here is incredible.

Martin McGuinness is good enough for the people of the North of Ireland, good enough to be the Minister for Education for 5 years, good enough to be the Deputy First Minister for the north of Ireland working daily alongside Peter Robinson and the D.U.P., but at the same time as all of that he is not good enough for the south. 'Too soon'

I think it's part of the double think going on in some quarters of the republic as regards the north of the country and in particular the nationalist north.

I think many in the south would have preferred if they'd been behind an Palestinian style 'peace-wall' so that they could be totally written off.

It wasn't me!

Morlar wrote: »

Martin McGuinness is good enough for the people of the North of Ireland, good enough to be the Minister for Education for 5 years, good enough to be the Deputy First Minister for the north of Ireland working daily alongside Peter Robinson and the D.U.P., but at the same time as all of that he is not good enough for the south. 'Too soon'

I think the point you're missing is that the people who wouldn't vote for him for president wouldn't be voting him into Stormont were they in the north either.

Morlar

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I think the point you're missing is that the people who wouldn't vote for him for president wouldn't be voting him into Stormont were they in the north either.

I didn't say that they would, no politician enjoys 100% popularity. At the same time McGuinness has polled consistently far ahead of Gay Mitchell for example. That doesn't mean we should disallow Gay Mitchell from standing, or discriminate against him vehemently in the media, for example.

That's not where the hypocrisy lies in my view. What I said about the double standard seems clear on it's own :

Morlar wrote: »

The glaring double standard here is incredible.

Martin McGuinness is good enough for the people of the North of Ireland, good enough to be the Minister for Education for 5 years, good enough to be the Deputy First Minister for the north of Ireland working daily alongside Peter Robinson and the D.U.P., but at the same time as all of that he is not good enough for the south. 'Too soon'

I think it's part of the double think going on in some quarters of the republic as regards the north of the country and in particular the nationalist north.

I think many in the south would have preferred if they'd been behind an Palestinian style 'peace-wall' so that they could be totally written off.

FG sit on cross border north south bodies & have no problem whatsoever with Martin McGuinness being either, Education Minister of Northern Ireland, or Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

As soon as he announces his candidacy for the Presidency - suddenly there's a problem with both his credentials & eligibility as a politician. It's like as if we are expected to believe Fine Gael were just catching up on paperwork and suddenly noticed some kind of oversight going back 20 odd yrs.

Cue F.G. (not forgetting the Irish Mainstream media) beginning with Phil Hogan, Alan Shatter then Gay Mitchell 'randomly' making all sorts of 'pure coincidence - no negative campaign here' kinds of spurious negative allegations & insinuations against the man across the media in a co-ordinated organised manner.

None of which are remotely proven or borne out.

None of which ever posed the slightest problem to his Credentials and Eligibility to be the Education Minister or Deputy First Minister (along with Peter Robinson DUP) of Northern Ireland, we are to believe that while they do not affect his abilities and integrity and credentials North of the border - they somehow only affect his credibility and eligibility South of the border. That's the hypocrisy & double standard in my view.

Stovepipe

Nice going, Morlar.You fail to comment on the first six lines of my post yet you rail against me generalising. Kindly read them again and pass comment.

I, personally, me, as ex-PDF, do not want MMG as the C-in-C(however nominal the title) or as President of the Republic, when within six years of today, the senior policeman of the republic says that MMG is on the Army Council of the IRA. He cannot serve two masters.

regards
Stovepipe

Morlar

Stovepipe wrote: »

Nice going, Morlar.You fail to comment on the first six lines of my post yet you rail against me generalising. Kindly read them again and pass comment.

I, personally, me, as ex-PDF, do not want MMG as the C-in-C(however nominal the title) or as President of the Republic, when within six years of today, the senior policeman of the republic says that MMG is on the Army Council of the IRA. He cannot serve two masters.

regards
Stovepipe

I did read them, they are utterly irrelevant. 'He cannot serve 2 masters' such total absolute drivel. If you genuinely believe that anti-republican rhetoric then I suggest you seek professional help.

At any time since Omagh Martin McGuinness could have not just been Arrested, but Convicted on nothing more than the word of an assistant Garda Comissioner.

He would not be required to say 'Martin McGuinness is the head of the IRA'.

He would only be required to say 'I believe Martin McGuinness is a MEMBER of the IRA'. BANG go to prison 4 yrs.

Post Omagh that is all the evidence required to convict of membership.

Yet Martin McGuinness was not arrested, not charged, nor convicted of anything. Fancy that.

Putting a candidate in a position where they have to defend themselves against accusers who do not make public accusations and who themselves are immune from scrutiny is grossly unfair.

There is no evidence whatsoever behind the allegations that at the time he was Minister for Education he was also leading a defunct organisation.

That part of your post simply continues the predictable anti-republican theme of slur, insinuation, unproven allegation and negative campaigning.

So now that I have addressed that - why don't you now address the post you ignored here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74996851&postcount=231

celticbest67

Stovepipe wrote: »

Nice going, Morlar.You fail to comment on the first six lines of my post yet you rail against me generalising. Kindly read them again and pass comment.

I, personally, me, as ex-PDF, do not want MMG as the C-in-C(however nominal the title) or as President of the Republic, when within six years of today, the senior policeman of the republic says that MMG is on the Army Council of the IRA. He cannot serve two masters.

regards
Stovepipe

What absolute sh!t talk, as you say you were a member of the PDF you would know that when the people vote & return a person to the role of President you have to serve them whether you like there politics or not, or if you were still serving you can always leave.

:rolleyes: As I'm sure you are aware we do not have a senior policeman of the republic, we have a Garda Commissioner......

gizmo555

Morlar wrote: »

At any time since Omagh Martin McGuinness could have not just been Arrested, but Convicted on nothing more than the word of an assistant Garda Comissioner.

He would not be required to say 'Martin McGuinness is the head of the IRA'.

He would only be required to say 'I believe Martin McGuinness is a MEMBER of the IRA'. BANG go to prison 4 yrs.

Post Omagh that is all the evidence required to convict of membership.

Yet Martin McGuinness was not arrested, not charged, nor convicted of anything. Fancy that.

It's not at all surprising that in light of McGuinness's role in the peace talks, he wasn't prosecuted. If they put the most senior IRA members in prison, who could they have negotiated with?

Morlar

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's not at all surprising that in light of McGuinness's role in the peace talks, he wasn't prosecuted. If they put the most senior IRA members in prison, who could they have negotiated with?

You are assuming that the allegation is proof of itself.

For the purposes of pursuing a political agenda (in this case anti-SF, anti-Martin McGuinness) that may suffice. However I believe that if you are honest with yourself you will accept that In the real world that 'Allegation=proof' is not the way that it works, and for good reason.

gizmo555

Morlar wrote: »

You are assuming that the allegation is proof of itself.

As you wrote, the law states that if made on oath, in court, by a Asst Commissioner super or higher ranked Garda such an allegation is proof.

The Garda Commissioner may not have been on oath when he briefed the cabinet, but I doubt he took the matter any the less seriously than if he had been.

Morlar

gizmo555 wrote: »

As you wrote, the law states that if made on oath, in court, by a Asst Commissioner super or higher ranked Garda such an allegation is proof.

The Garda Commissioner may not have been on oath when he briefed the cabinet, but I doubt he took the matter any the less seriously than if he had been.

No, he was not on Oath. He was not in a court of Law. In fact there is not much information about this event in the public domain whatsoever is there?

So, where is the proof of any of this assertion to begin with ?

The allegation is Not the proof.

Are you really so convinced that public servants telling politicians what they want to hear would be such an abnormality ? Is that what you offer by way of proof ?

Stovepipe

@Morlar, so now you're saying that successive GCs lie to their paymasters. What is said is naturally private and only the incoming Minister is privy to what is said. If two of them say it happened, on a public radio programme,then it did and it continues to be done.
@cb67, the senior policeman is the Garda Commissioner, as you very well know.
I fully understand about honouring a President as C-in-C but at least the ones that held office when I was in the DF were not terrorists/members of the IRA/members of the IRA's ruling council/friends of terrorists/apologists for terror/condoners of the murder of the Republic's gardai (delete inapplicable words).

regards
Stovepipe

Morlar

Stovepipe wrote: »

@Morlar, so now you're saying that successive GCs lie to their paymasters. What is said is naturally private and only the incoming Minister is privy to what is said. If two of them say it happened, on a public radio programme,then it did and it continues to be done.
@cb67, the senior policeman is the Garda Commissioner, as you very well know.
I fully understand about honouring a President as C-in-C but at least the ones that held office when I was in the DF were not terrorists/members of the IRA/members of the IRA's ruling council/friends of terrorists/apologists for terror/condoners of the murder of the Republic's gardai (delete inapplicable words).

regards
Stovepipe

I am sometimes wrong about things & then at some point I look back and think about them, I would wonder if those putting forward the position you are currently putting forward would ever do the same ?

I recommend when the election is done and dusted you take a look back at the desperate logic of the position you are putting forward here, it seems to me to be based on an irrational fear.

McGuinness has been the Co-Prime Minister (one way of describing it) of Northern Ireland for years now, not titular or symbolic -but actual. The skies didn't exactly fall as a result. Likewise as President of the Republic of Ireland the outcome would not see the skies fall either - so it hardly merits the convoluted positions some are taking here.

Looking back in history the closest I can think of to what you are describing here ('Allegation=Proof') would be the Roland Freisler or the Zhirinovsky show trials. Seriously. Except Freisler did actually have a standard of proof, he aquitted people from time to time. In the Zhirinovsky show trials one solid gold requirement was that the accused had an opportunity to defend themself.

Whereas here . . . we have an accuser who is exempt from scrutiny or recrimination and people are using a political accusation (not a legal one), people using a political accusation as proof of itself. All for the purposes of attempting to deny the eligibility and credibility of a political opponent. It's the most bizzare thing to see in a 21st Century democracy. Does this all really sit well with you ? Is determination to talk down electoral progress of a politician/ party you disagree with that irrational ? Seriously, it's a ludicrous allegation, totally unproven and counter logical.

No one so far has offered a shred of proof beyond that an allegation was made 'in private'. Ridiculous.

Morlar

I know this is a little offtopic but is anyone is watching Tg4 ?

Sean Gallagher has just said he would be open to revising the national anthem to make it 'less militaristic'. He mentioned one that could be played 'at Rugby Matches'. Norris also said he would be open to it being revised. Martin McGuinness has said he would not be open to seeing the National Anthem revised.