What Has Martin McGuinness Ever Done For The Republic of Ireland?

KELTICKNIGHTT

anymore wrote: »

1. His organisation helped run a variety of summer /training camps in rural areas which were economically underveloped.,e.g Roscommon.
2. Helped keep diplomatic channels open with a varity of third world countries, e.g, Libya.
3. Ensured that Britain could not just ignore small countries like ireland
4. Helped ensure that ireland received extensive coverage in the international media.
5. Helped Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair look good.
6. Ensured that the DUP became the larges party in North, etc, etc

Helped keep diplomatic channels open with a varity of third world countries, e.g, Libya.
Ensured that Britain could not just ignore small countries like ireland
Helped ensure that ireland received extensive coverage in the international media.
Helped Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair look good.

show how he helped Ireland
helping libya i wouldn't consider a help in positive way ,helping a dictator whos in hiding but come to think of it
didn't libya send arms and guns etc to PIRA,so mc guinness helped them or did libya help mc guinness and PIRA

http://www.victims.org.uk/petition.html

Libyan arms

The other source of IRA arms in the 1970s was Libya, whose leader, Muammar al-Gaddafi, sympathised with their campaign.[14] The first Libyan arms donation to the IRA occurred in 1972–1973, following visits by Joe Cahill to Libya. In early 1973, the Government of the Republic of Ireland received intelligence that the vessel Claudia was carrying a shipment of weapons, and placed the ship under surveillance on 27 March. On 28 March, three Irish Naval Service patrol vessels intercepted the Claudia in Irish territorial waters near Helvick Head, County Waterford, seizing five tonnes of Libyan arms and ammunition found on board. The weapons seized included 250 Soviet-made small arms, 240 rifles, anti-tank mines and other explosives. Cahill was found and arrested on board.[15][16] It is estimated that three shipments of weapons of similar size and makeup did get through to the IRA during the same time period.[17] Moloney reports that the early Libyan arms shipments furnished the IRA with its first RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and that Gaddafi also donated three to five million US dollars at this time.[18] However contact with the Libyan government was broken off in 1976.
Contact with Libya was restored in the aftermath of the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike, which was said to have impressed Gadaffi. In the 1980s, the IRA secured larger quantities of weapons and explosives from Gaddafi's Libya — enough to supply at least two infantry battalions.[19] These shipments were as a direct result of Gaddafi's desire to strike at the British Government for their support and assistance during the US Air Force's bombing attacks on Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986. The USAF planes involved in the bombings had taken off from British bases on 14 April 1986. 60 Libyans died in the attack. This second major Libyan contribution to the IRA came in 1986–1987. The arms shipments included:
9mm Browning, Taurus, Glock and Beretta handguns
AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifles
MP5 submachine guns
RPG-7 anti-tank rocket launcher
Soviet made DShK heavy machine guns
FN MAG machine guns
Military flamethrowers
Semtex plastic explosive
Strela 2 man portable SAMs
However, on 1 November 1987, during transit to Ireland, one-third of the total Libyan arms consignment being carried aboard the MV Eksund (sometimes referred to simply as Eksund) was intercepted by the French Navy while the ship was in the Bay of Biscay,[20] along with five crew members, among them Gabriel Cleary. The vessel was found to contain 120 tonnes of weapons, including HMGs, 36 RPGs, 1000 detonators, 20 SAMs, Semtex and 1,000,000 rounds of ammunition.[21] Author Ed Moloney claimed that the Eksund shipment also contained military mortars and 106 millimetre cannon, an assertion never confirmed by the Irish authorities.[22] Despite the Eksund fiasco, the IRA was by then equipped with a quantity and quality of weaponry and explosives never available to them at any other phase of their history.[23] Furthermore, according to Brendan O'Brien there was actually an 'over-supply', specially regarding the 600 AK-47s still in the hands of the IRA by 1992.[24] There were four shipments before the Eksund which were not intercepted, in a huge intelligence failure of both Irish and British agencies described as 'calamitous' by author Brendan O'Brien.[23] The previous arm supplies from Libya developed as follows:
The trawler Casamara took on ten tonnes of weapons in September 1985 off the Maltese island of Gozo. These weapons were landed off the Clogga Strand near Arklow by inflatable boats some weeks later. The shipment contained five hundred crates of AK-47s, pistols, hand grenades, ammunition and seven RPG-7s.
The Casamara (renamed Kula at this time), left Maltese waters on 6 October 1985 carrying a cache of Soviet-made heavy machine guns.
In July 1986, there was a shipment of fourteen tonnes, including, according to the authorities, two SAM-7s.
In October 1986, another shipment of 80 which included one tonne of Semtex, reportedly ten SAM-7 missiles, more RPG-7s, AK-47s and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition arrived aboard the oil-rig replenishment Villa.[25]
It is also estimated that the Libyan government gave the IRA the equivalent of £2 million along with the 1980s shipments.[26]
Garda Síochána (Irish police) uncovered numerous arms destined for the IRA in 1988. These included several hundred AK-47s, Russian DSHK HMGs, FN MAG machine guns and Semtex

KELTICKNIGHTT

blahfckingblah wrote: »

What are you even on about now?:eek: back on topic. please,for the sake of sanity.

i don't agree
can be seen all over the forum by sinn fein with sf supporters taking cheap shots too when non sf supporters don't agree with them

Sunnyisland

blahfckingblah wrote: »

What are you even on about now?:eek: back on topic. please,for the sake of sanity.

:D:D Sorry for laughing, For the sake of our sanity we all need a break from the politics threads :) said with respect to everyone.

blahfckingblah

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

i don't agree
can be seen all over the forum by sinn fein with sf supporters taking cheap shots too when non sf supporters don't agree with them

yep and a few non sinn fein supporters too, don't tar everyone with the same brush

maccored

So basically the point you are making is you have no basis to state mmg is lying, yet you insist on doing so. Ive no problem with that, as long as you realise that just because you think he's lying doesnt mean he did. Plus no-one is trying to deny you your democratic right to vote. Maybe its time to drop the accusations of lying until you can back it up with something. heresay is no good.

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh, it probably would be politically sensitive and hardly helpful in NI, I understand that. Also it might have harmed the peace process considering the views some Republicans already have of the PSNI and then you have the Conspiracy theorists who think he's a British agent!

Personally, now that I think he has left NI politics and is running here, I don't see the need to keep up the pretence now. I suppose the IRA's history after 1974 isn't that great and it suits him to distance himself from it.

As for democracy, I've no problem with him running so no need for hysterics like that. I just reserve my democratic right to vote for a better candidate.

KELTICKNIGHTT

blahfckingblah wrote: »

yep and a few non sinn fein supporters too, don't tar everyone with the same brush

do you support martin mc guinness ?

alastair

maccored wrote: »

heresay is no good.

It's seemingly good enough for McGuinness, so I don't see the problem. Look at who believes McGuinness's story is rubbish, and look at who claims to buy it. Look at the known leverage McGuinness had with the army council post '74 - apply a little logic in lieu of faith.

blahfckingblah

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

do you support martin mc guinness ?

Yes, why do you ask such questions?

K-9

maccored wrote: »

So basically the point you are making is you have no basis to state mmg is lying, yet you insist on doing so. Ive no problem with that, as long as you realise that just because you think he's lying doesnt mean he did. Plus no-one is trying to deny you your democratic right to vote. Maybe its time to drop the accusations of lying until you can back it up with something. heresay is no good.

I've given you the sources, as did Browne, it's a lot to ignore. It isn't just black ops by British Intelligence or other theories!

You basically want the PSNI to take a case against him which is rather unlikely. Another poster here, Happyman accepts he's lying and is doing it as the lesser of 2 evils.

Maybe I'm an ould political cynic and don't idolise politicians!

KELTICKNIGHTT

blahfckingblah wrote: »

Yes, why do you ask such questions?

all i need to know
but you as a sinn fein supporter find you in ok as sein fein poster go,don't agree with all you said but thats to be expected
i don't believe Ireland is ready for the likes of marty mc guinness and i don't believe he's good for Ireland as because of his past and he's toxic for this country Ireland,I don't believe he has come clean with everything.
It would have been better if sinn fein picked a different candidate .
I don't expect you too agree .

blahfckingblah

I never mentioned being a Sinn fein supporter, I have voted for them in the past because the alternatives were/are rediculous but thats beside the point

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's seemingly good enough for McGuinness, so I don't see the problem. Look at who believes McGuinness's story is rubbish, and look at who claims to buy it. Look at the known leverage McGuinness had with the army council post '74 - apply a little logic in lieu of faith.

You still haven't addressed what possible consequence the answer YOU want has?
All politicians lie, or spin for various reasons.
Personally, I think McG's answer has no consequence because I think he is in control of something bigger than a political party.

I know of no politician IN POWER who hasn't lied/spun to some degree. Can you name one?
If you think a politician is lying/spinning, you have to decide is he/she doing it for personal gain or for much more important reasons.
In this instance, you have to ask yourself; if McG was a member after he says he was, IS IT FOR A GOOD REASON?
There are 'fairly' extraordinary reasons why he might. If you lived in Derry, you of all people should know that.

What has he to gain personally from lying? A lifestyle of excess ala Haughey? I don't think so.

Look at the other candidates;
Why do you think MDH stepped outside the Labour party to run? Was it because he knew he wouldn't have to lie about supporting the present majority party in government?
Why is Norris, tacitly lying about his past, by hiding behind lawyers and data protection?
Why is Gallagher having to re-address questions he is being asked about his past?
Why is Davis lying, full stop?
Why is Mitchell attacking McG, knowing that his party are responsible for collusion with the British?
Why is Dana?:D

KELTICKNIGHTT

Happyman42 wrote: »

You still haven't addressed what possible consequence the answer YOU want has?
All politicians lie, or spin for various reasons.
Personally, I think McG's answer has no consequence because I think he is in control of something bigger than a political party.

I know of no politician IN POWER who hasn't lied/spun to some degree. Can you name one?
If you think a politician is lying/spinning, you have to decide is he/she doing it for personal gain or for much more important reasons.
In this instance, you have to ask yourself; if McG was a member after he says he was, IS IT FOR A GOOD REASON?
There are 'fairly' extraordinary reasons why he might. If you lived in Derry, you of all people should know that.

What has he to gain personally from lying? A lifestyle of excess ala Haughey? I don't think so.

Look at the other candidates;
Why do you think MDH stepped outside the Labour party to run? Was it because he knew he wouldn't have to lie about supporting the present majority party in government?
Why is Norris, tacitly lying about his past, by hiding behind lawyers and data protection?
Why is Gallagher having to re-address questions he is being asked about his past?
Why is Davis lying, full stop?
Why is Mitchell attacking McG, knowing that his party are responsible for collusion with the British?
Why is Dana?:D

so Michael D Higgins is the winner so he be next president
thank you

Happyman42

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

so Michael D Higgins is the winner so he be next president
thank you

You know what?
Somebody on here said something earlier and I've been thinking about it,
'Why should the British tell us what our history is'
(please tell me who you where that said that)
I'm now a firm McGuinness voter because, why not? Why not put him in as a representative of our schizo state. It's the truth after all, what all you people are looking for...'the truth'.
Lets put a reformed IRA man in as president and tell the world, 'we haven't figured it out yet, folks...we are not ashamed of who we are...but we are facing up to who we are, we won't play patsy or falsity anymore'.
It was that element of Mary McAleese''s presidency that was cringeworthy, the false peace and reconciliation claptrap that really let her down.
Listen to anybody involved in P&R and the slippy language they slip into...vomit!

McGuinness for President because he most represents who we are. That's what he can do for us.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Happyman42 wrote: »

You know what?
Somebody on here said something earlier and I've been thinking about it,
'Why should the British tell us what our history is'
(please tell me who you where that said that)
I'm now a firm McGuinness voter because, why not? Why not put him in as a representative of our schizo state. It's the truth after all, what all you people are looking for...'the truth'.
Lets put a reformed IRA man in as president and tell the world, 'we haven't figured it out yet, folks...we are not ashamed of who we are...but we are facing up to who we are, we won't play patsy or falsity anymore'.
It was that element of Mary McAleese''s presidency that was cringeworthy, the false peace and reconciliation claptrap that really let her down.
Listen to anybody involved in P&R and the slippy language they slip into...vomit!

McGuinness for President because he most represents who we are. That's what he can do for us.

funny
very
you always where ex-terrorist mc guinness supporter,no surprise

the only people in south are ashamed of is what PIRA did and people like mcguinnes where in charge in derry
but rant on please

Happyman42

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

but rant on please

OK

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

you always where ex-terrorist mc guinness supporter,no surprise

poove it.

KELTICKNIGHTT

Happyman42 wrote: »

OK



poove it.

look at your posts
p.s spelling a little out for you

jank

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I live in the real world, and I don't accept that these things just "happen", because they are choices.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting people to make better choices.

Kinda funny when you are the most negative poster on this forum. Also anti something. How about being pro something?

KELTICKNIGHTT

jank wrote: »

Kinda funny when you are the most negative poster on this forum. Also anti something. How about being pro something?

look at your posts

Liam Byrne

jank wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I live in the real world, and I don't accept that these things just "happen", because they are choices.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting people to make better choices.

Kinda funny when you are the most negative poster on this forum. Also anti something. How about being pro something?

I am. Pro decency and honesty. What's your point ?

No idea how that's "kinda funny" to you.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You still haven't addressed what possible consequence the answer YOU want has?
All politicians lie, or spin for various reasons.
Personally, I think McG's answer has no consequence because I think he is in control of something bigger than a political party.

I know of no politician IN POWER who hasn't lied/spun to some degree. Can you name one?
If you think a politician is lying/spinning, you have to decide is he/she doing it for personal gain or for much more important reasons.
In this instance, you have to ask yourself; if McG was a member after he says he was, IS IT FOR A GOOD REASON?
There are 'fairly' extraordinary reasons why he might. If you lived in Derry, you of all people should know that.

What has he to gain personally from lying? A lifestyle of excess ala Haughey? I don't think so.

Look at the other candidates;
Why do you think MDH stepped outside the Labour party to run? Was it because he knew he wouldn't have to lie about supporting the present majority party in government?
Why is Norris, tacitly lying about his past, by hiding behind lawyers and data protection?
Why is Gallagher having to re-address questions he is being asked about his past?
Why is Davis lying, full stop?
Why is Mitchell attacking McG, knowing that his party are responsible for collusion with the British?
Why is Dana?:D

McGuinness perpetuates the lie because he has to at this stage - he can't expose his deceit and retain any credibility. He could have chosen the David Ervine route, but didn't. Pretending that Norris is 'tacitly' lying just isn't going to cut it - he's always been honest with his views and actions - to his detriment. the other candidates have their negative points, but none of them insult my intelligence to the same degree that McGuinness does, and none of them have blood on their hands. It's a pretty simple equation for me - and for most voters.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

McGuinness perpetuates the lie because he has to at this stage - he can't expose his deceit and retain any credibility. He could have chosen the David Ervine route, but didn't. Pretending that Norris is 'tacitly' lying just isn't going to cut it - he's always been honest with his views and actions - to his detriment. the other candidates have their negative points, but none of them insult my intelligence to the same degree that McGuinness does, and none of them have blood on their hands. It's a pretty simple equation for me - and for most voters.

As usual you have cherrypicked which bits you want to answer.

Norris claimed he was an 'open book'....lie No. 1, he has left two major issues unanswered and kicked them to touch.
He revealed his feet of clay, he's no better than all the rest. The polls agree with this, I fancy his performance on election day will be much worse, because the polls have an urban bias.

Now.....tell us the name of a politician (in a position of power) who doesn't spin/lie.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

As usual you have cherrypicked which bits you want to answer.

Norris claimed he was an 'open book'....lie No. 1, he has left two major issues unanswered and kicked them to touch.
He revealed his feet of clay, he's no better than all the rest. The polls agree with this, I fancy his performance on election day will be much worse, because the polls have an urban bias.

Now.....tell us the name of a politician (in a position of power) who doesn't spin/lie.

I'll go for the man with 'feet of clay' and a record of honest democratic representation over the man who presided over human car bombs, against the democratic will of the people, any day. I'm strange that way - judge people by their record.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I'll go for the man with 'feet of clay' and a record of honest democratic representation over the man who presided over human car bombs, against the democratic will of the people, any day. I'm strange that way - judge people by their record.

Yeh...waffle on about the Palestinian crisis but do nothing about human rights issues on your doorstep?
Norris is a professional talker, he's no politician, so I'm still waiting.

anymore

I am not going to vote SF, but reality is that Barrack Obama has presided over the deaths of enormoulsy more civilian deaths than MGM and Obama is doing just for the sake of his job.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yeh...waffle on about the Palestinian crisis but do nothing about human rights issues on your doorstep?
Norris is a professional talker, he's no politician, so I'm still waiting.

Way to go in ignoring the domestic civil rights changes that Norris personally and individually ushered in.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Way to go in ignoring the domestic civil rights changes that Norris personally and individually ushered in.

His own pet issues you mean?
There are those in the gay community that would dispute that he did much at all. Just moved into the limelight at the right time.

What did he do about human rights in the North in the 60's 70' & 80's? Like other 'upstanding' Southern deniers & politicos....feck all, too afraid of getting his hands and linen suit dirty.:rolleyes:

alastair

It pretty clear what SF did for human rights in the 60's, 70's and 80's. It's not very pretty.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It pretty clear what SF did for human rights in the 60's, 70's and 80's. It's not very pretty.

If you won't name a politician who doesn't lie/spin maybe you could answer this one;
IYO was there anywhere in the world where people where right to rise up violently against their oppressors? If so, where?

maccored

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe I'm an ould political cynic and don't idolise politicians!

Sounds to me that you cant tell the difference between hearsay and facts.