Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…1718202223…32

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    maccored wrote: »
    eh? treat it like any other war, because thats what it was.

    So, all those Republican prisoners should have been locked up for the duration, no trials needed, no time off for good behaviour, until the IRA surrendered.

    But no! That was internment, and Horribly Wrong!

    Shoot to kill? Normal in a real war, but in the North, Horribly Wrong! Were all those provisionals in a recognizable uniform at all times? No? Shoot them as spies. How did the Provisionals treat their prisoners of war? What do you mean, they didn't take prisoners?

    Essentially, if the Troubles had been a real war, and the Brits were the Bad Guys the Shinners say they were, the IRA would have been treated the way the Germans treated the French Resistance.


  • Options
    #573
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    LordSutch wrote: »
    What, you mean like all the casualties were just part of collateral damage! Ergo, Mr McGuinness was part of legitimate Army (PIRA) who fought a war against a foreign invading army, atrocities were carried out by all sides, and nobody can claim to have the moral high ground, etc etc etc, Ergo: everybody is off the hook, and Mr McGuinness was never part of a terrorist organisation, because the PIRA wasnt a terrorist organisation, it was a true & just army defending the rights of the Irish people, who gave their permission for said army to fight & defend them against the Brits ;)

    Tell us Lord Sutch, what wars, insurrections have you managed to go back and adjust the protagonists morals in?

    Nobody is much bothered about the above ^ semantics....how do I know that?......well the FACT is that 3500 PEOPLE died, over a million and a half have decided to move on and reach an agreement (GFA) where parity of esteem and equal opportunity is constitutionally revered.
    We 4-5 million in the south agreed and also agreed to the terms of the GFA.
    EVERYBODY agreed to draw a line under acts committed before 1998.
    YOU, ME, and every other signatory of the GFA have agreed that.
    Don't vote for McG, nobody is forcing you, but for goodness sake allow the debate about our futures to move on. It will anyway.


    Unless of course you don't believe in the 'will of the people'.
    Therefore you might need this number:
    Colonel Gaddafi 074110282820 :rolleyes: :)


  • Options
    #574
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So, all those Republican prisoners should have been locked up for the duration, no trials needed, no time off for good behaviour, until the IRA surrendered.

    ever hear of the diplock courts?
    But no! That was internment, and Horribly Wrong!

    Internment was bollocks, and directed against the public. these things happen in a war - IM not denying that. I do wonder though if you have any idea what internment was about.
    Shoot to kill? Normal in a real war, but in the North, Horribly Wrong! Were all those provisionals in a recognizable uniform at all times? No? Shoot them as spies. How did the Provisionals treat their prisoners of war? What do you mean, they didn't take prisoners?

    Shoot to kill IS part of war ... as I already mentioned, its a pity the brits keep denying there ever was a war in the first place. If there was no war, then shoot to kill is wrong. they cant have it both ways.
    Essentially, if the Troubles had been a real war, and the Brits were the Bad Guys the Shinners say they were, the IRA would have been treated the way the Germans treated the French Resistance.

    the 'troubles' (what a condescending description) was a lot more than some 'troubles'. It was a war. I dont think you'll find any republican who will complain if the british face up to their part in it, rather than - as I have already pointed out - this idea that one side are terrorists and the other side are saints. problem is, the brits - and those who seem to apologise for them - wont admit to it being a war as their own propaganda machine has been running red hot for the last few decades saying the opposite.


  • Options
    #575
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Don't vote for McG, nobody is forcing you, but for goodness sake allow the debate about our futures to move on. It will anyway.

    Problem is, the needle is stuck in a groove that keeps saying "I left the Provo's in 1974" < This untrue stops the debate moving on . . . .


  • Options
    #576
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    LordSutch wrote: »
    What, you mean like all the casualties were just part of collateral damage! Ergo, Mr McGuinness was part of legitimate Army (PIRA) who fought a war against a foreign invading army, atrocities were carried out by all sides, and nobody can claim to have the moral high ground, etc etc etc, Ergo: everybody is off the hook, and Mr McGuinness was never part of a terrorist organisation, because the PIRA wasnt a terrorist organisation, it was a true & just army defending the rights of the Irish people, who gave their permission for said army to fight & defend them against the Brits ;)

    in a nutshell, yes. the people of the north overall did give them permission to do so ..... dont know about the people in the south.

    I suppose those who claim the north is a different country probably wouldnt have ... but as mentioned many times so far - it was the people in the north who had to deal with the bull****, not those living in the republic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    maccored wrote: »
    Shoot to kill IS part of war ... as I already mentioned, its a pity the brits keep denying there ever was a war in the first place.

    Under your rules, McGuinness would be dead since 1973.


  • Options
    #578
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Problem is that the needle is stuck in a groove that keeps saying "I left the Provisional IRA in 1974" < This mantra that stops the debate moving forward.

    How so? Wheres the info to say otherwise? Im sure someone would have the intelligence files to prove he was in the IRA. Where is that information then?


  • Options
    #579
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Under your rules, McGuinness would be dead since 1973.

    why, was he shot? or are you just twisting the argument to wiggle out of it? there was plenty shoot to kill going on. I saw a car with 3 suspected IRA men in it, dead. when I saw the same car on the news there were loads of guns in it. They were shot as they were 'suspected' ira members, and then after the guns placed there to make it look like they were armed. As i say, such things happen in wars, but to then deny there was a war at all - thats just insult to injury


  • Options
    #580
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,748 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    maccored wrote: »
    the 'troubles' (what a condescending description) was a lot more than some 'troubles'. It was a war. I dont think you'll find any republican who will complain if the british face up to their part in it, rather than - as I have already pointed out - this idea that one side are terrorists and the other side are saints. problem is, the brits - and those who seem to apologise for them - wont admit to it being a war as their own propaganda machine has been running red hot for the last few decades saying the opposite.
    With respect, I am a republican but I cannot think of one murder committed during the troubles that was justified. Can you?
    I do not consider it to have been a "war" but maybe I'm just a different type of republican to you!


  • Options
    #581
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    kbannon wrote: »
    With respect, I am a republican but I cannot think of one murder committed during the troubles that was justified. Can you?
    I do not consider it to have been a "war" but maybe I'm just a different type of republican to you!

    where have I said any death was justified? Plus, yes you must be a different kind of republican than me. If it wasnt a war, then what was it exactly?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    LordSutch wrote: »
    Problem is, the needle is stuck in a groove that keeps saying "I left the Provo's in 1974" < This mantra that stops the debate moving on . . . .

    Yes, and the more hysterical certain media and certain Irish men and women in denial get- pointlessly asking that question- the more the shallow depths of the partitionist mentality is exposed.
    They are being snookered in behind the green ball, so to speak.


  • Options
    #583
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    maccored wrote: »
    where have I said any death was justified? Plus, yes you must be a different kind of republican than me. If it wasnt a war, then what was it exactly?

    Tribalism.


  • Options
    #584
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    maccored wrote: »
    why, was he shot? or are you just twisting the argument to wiggle out of it?

    He wasn't shot, he was arrested for committing crimes. But according to you, they weren't crimes, it was a war, he was a soldier, and therefore a valid target.

    Now, about this war. The IRA did not recognise Ireland as a state, were they at war with us, too?


  • Options
    #585
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    He wasn't shot, he was arrested for committing crimes. But according to you, they weren't crimes, it was a war, he was a soldier, and therefore a valid target.

    Now, about this war. The IRA did not recognise Ireland as a state, were they at war with us, too?

    Hmm, plenty still don't recognise the Republic. If I was a sentimental patriot, I'd have them down as traitors :D


  • Options
    #586
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    He wasn't shot, he was arrested for committing crimes. But according to you, they weren't crimes, it was a war, he was a soldier, and therefore a valid target.

    Now, about this war. The IRA did not recognise Ireland as a state, were they at war with us, too?

    Yeah, he was a soldier and it was a war. whats your point exactly? They mightnt have shot and killed mmg, but they shot and killed many others.

    personally, not too many people I know in the north growing up gave a flying **** about the south.


  • Options
    #587
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    old hippy wrote: »
    Tribalism.

    Cute word, but wholly inaccurate.


  • Options
    #588
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    maccored wrote: »
    Yeah, he was a soldier and it was a war. whats your point exactly? They mightnt have shot and killed mmg, but they shot and killed many others.

    personally, not too many people I know in the north growing up gave a flying **** about the south.

    I think that sentiment went both ways, tbh


  • Options
    #589
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    old hippy wrote: »
    I think that sentiment went both ways, tbh

    I dont think anyone would have cared.


  • Options
    #590
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    maccored wrote: »
    Cute word, but wholly inaccurate.

    Bunch of tribes hating and killing each other. Very accurate, a chara.


  • Options
    #591
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    maccored wrote: »
    I dont think anyone would have cared.

    Which is why you are an alien country to us, a chara


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,748 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    maccored wrote: »
    where have I said any death was justified? Plus, yes you must be a different kind of republican than me. If it wasnt a war, then what was it exactly?
    By continuing to think of it as a war you are trying to justify the actions.
    As for me being a different type of republican, I believe that a republican is one who believes in (to quote wikipedia) "a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister."
    Like John Hume and many others who had to live in both NI and the RoI during the IRA campaign of terror, I don't believe in terrorism, which, whether or not you like it, was what the IRA campaign was.


  • Options
    #593
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    old hippy wrote: »
    Bunch of tribes hating and killing each other. Very accurate, a chara.

    I cant agree with you on that one. it wasnt tribal. thats a cheap word used to wrap up complex social issues into, and hope no-one looks any deeper. personally when i hear someone using that description, I just assume they dont really have much an understanding of what was going on - not saying you dont, but if you did I'd be very surprised to hear you using the word 'tribal'.


  • Options
    #594
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    old hippy wrote: »
    Bunch of tribes hating and killing each other. Very accurate, a chara.

    WTF is the sense in that? ^
    Who was fighting in world war 2 or any war, only tribes?
    Not much of a contribution to the debate tbh.


  • Options
    #595
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    kbannon wrote: »
    By continuing to think of it as a war you are trying to justify the actions.
    As for me being a different type of republican, I believe that a republican is one who believes in (to quote wikipedia) "a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister."
    Like John Hume and many others who had to live in both NI and the RoI during the IRA campaign of terror, I don't believe in terrorism.

    OK - so you say there was no war because i am 'trying to justify the actions'. sorry, but thats just rubbish. I dont believe in terrorism either. again, its a handy word to use without having to define what it actually means. if there was no cause for the problems in the north, you could call it terrorism, but unless you intend to re-write history, you're better off accepting it as a war.


  • Options
    #596
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    maccored wrote: »
    I cant agree with you on that one. it wasnt tribal. thats a cheap word used to wrap up complex social issues into, and hope no-one looks any deeper. personally when i hear someone using that description, I just assume they dont really have much an understanding of what was going on - not saying you dont, but if you did I'd be very surprised to hear you using the word 'tribal'.

    As someone who regularly used to visit the 6 Counties and once held high hopes for unity or independence (at the least) I know exactly what's been going on. I have come to conclusion after many years and soul searching that I don't want you to be part of the Republic. But feel free to visit anytime :)


  • Options
    #597
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    old hippy wrote: »
    As someone who regularly used to visit the 6 Counties and once held high hopes for unity or independence (at the least) I know exactly what's been going on. I have come to conclusion after many years and soul searching that I don't want you to be part of the Republic. But feel free to visit anytime :)

    too late, im already living here. I still though think using the word 'tribal' is inaccurate and simplistic.


  • Options
    #598
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    maccored wrote: »
    in a nutshell, yes. the people of the north overall did give them permission to do so ..... dont know about the people in the south.

    The people of the North did no such thing^ that is a blatant lie. I am old enough to remember the troubles, and I can assure you that the PIRA only had minority support, within a minority community. The phrase Ballot box in one hand, and armalite in the other was a phrase aimed at the then fledgling Sinn Fein, who strove to gain power by political & armed means at the same time, and it was only after the PIRA began to end its hostilities that the Political wing (Sinn Fein) became more popular among the Nationalist population of Northern Ireland.


  • Options
    #599
    luckyfrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,054 ✭✭✭luckyfrank


    I'll be voting fo McGuinness whatever he done is in the past at the end of the day he was only defending his own people, it's all well and grand for us irish down south where the troubles only touched us on rare occasions we didnt have to live under a foreign goverment, i have to laugh at some of the posters on here talk about irish people up the north 'yes half the population in NI is IRISH' like there some other foreign people, how would a man from waterford or cork feel if he saw his neighbours and family being brutally discriminated against on a daily basis by the state and army of a country that is not yours

    Martin McGuinness may have done deeds that were terrible but you have to put it into to context

    Ask yourself this question : If it were east or southwest ireland that were under british rule instead of the north and what went on up north happend in your part of ireland how would you react ? Ive no doubt many would have chosen the hume way but many more would have choosing another route

    I'll be voting for Mcguinness on election day on his record on the peace process and the fact i believe he loves his country more than any of the other chancers of candidates


  • Options
    #600
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    maccored wrote: »
    personally, not too many people I know in the north growing up gave a flying **** about the south.

    McGuinness certainly gives off that vibe, with his "West Brit", "down here", "26 counties" language.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    maccored wrote: »
    too late, im already living here.

    Well, as long as you play by the rules, then ;)

    This is the Republic, not the UK - let's get that straight, first of all.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement