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

Happyman42

lugha wrote: »

You don't see the confusion in holding MMG up as a hero (though he took up arms against the wishes of the majority of the Irish people) but criticizing the dissidents (who take up arms against the wishes of the majority of the Irish people)?

I don't hold anybody up as a hero. Read the point again, I think you are the confused one.

lugha wrote: »

You cited events by the British that provoked an adverse reaction among nationalist, with the inference being that it pointed to evidence of a core sympathy they held for physical force republicans.

No I did not, I used the examples to show that voters are more sophisticated and that they don't have the luxury to make simple black and white 'moral' decisions that are so easily taken by those sitting beside cosy fireside's down south.
That is why Nationalsits voted in two new MPs in 97 and have rewarded SF with the status of most popular nationalist party despite their association with the IRA. They understand the complexities.

lugha wrote: »

And condemning unapologetic fascists is not morally righteous.

Yes it is, if you refuse to see the nuances.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

I argued before that the reasons are more complex. For instance my dads family are staunch supporters of the SDLP but they always were and still are wary of disrespecting the men and women who fought for freedom. Also, witness the reaction across the whole nationalist community when the British royally ****ed up Bloody Sunday, The Hunger Strikes, Gibraltar, Loughgall etc.


And we are told that it is 'morally wrong' for us to do the same.
More of the them and us double think, hypocrisy.

I've no problem highlighting the issues there, shoot to kill, Castelereagh etc, wrong, clearly wrong.

Warrington, Shankill, Bloody Friday, Proxy bombs all wrong too.

It's quiet easy to point out where the British went wrong. When it's pointed out that sending a proxy bomb into a British Army station is wrong, it always seems to end in whataboutery.

brendankelly wrote: »

I remember Gibraltar. 3 unarmed people Danny mc Cann , Maread Farrell and Sean Savage riddled with bullets by British forces in a foreign Country just because they were Irish.

My No 1 will go to an Independent but I am now considering giving my No 2 to MMG (if he mentions Aarhus)

There are questions for the SAS to answer about Gibraltar, don't think there was too much doubt about exactly what an IRA ASU was doing there.

Happyman42

View wrote: »

That's probably because your dads family are smart enough to realise that "the men and women who fought for freedom" would, at the slightest sign of "disrespect", have murdered them as fast as they'd have said hello to them.

Excellent contribution. Has the troll finished reading their Sun?

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

I've no problem highlighting the issues there, shoot to kill, Castelereagh etc, wrong, clearly wrong.

Warrington, Shankill, Bloody Friday, Proxy bombs all wrong too.

It's quiet easy to point out where the British went wrong. When it's pointed out that sending a proxy bomb into a British Army station is wrong, it always seems to end in whataboutery.

To retain any credibility, find out where I said it was right and quote.

brendankelly

There are questions for the SAS to answer about Gibraltar, don't think there was too much doubt about exactly what an IRA ASU was doing there.[/QUOTE]


I do not know what they were doing so please tell me.

Bannasidhe

brendankelly wrote: »

I remember Gibraltar. 3 unarmed people Danny mc Cann , Maread Farrell and Sean Savage riddled with bullets by British forces in a foreign Country just because they were Irish.

My No 1 will go to an Independent but I am now considering giving my No 2 to MMG (if he mentions Aarhus)

I remember Gibraltar - I remember Warrington in 1993 when 2 bombs - one outside a MacDonalds - were placed in cast iron bins in a busy shopping area. 3 year old Jonathan Bell and 12 year old Tim Parry died.

After the bombing the PIRA admitted planting the bombs but denied 'responsibility'

Responsibility for the tragic and deeply regrettable death and injuries caused in Warrington yesterday lies squarely at the door of those in the British authorities who deliberately failed to act on precise and adequate warnings

The cowardly murderers of children who planted the bomb were responsible. This was no military target in a just war for Irish independence - this was a terror attack on innocent people. No amount of spin or rhetoric or 'what the Brits did' can ever justify the cold blooded placing of bombs where the casualties are likely to be innocent children.

I remember, for the first time in my life, being ashamed to be Irish.

View

Happyman42 wrote: »

Excellent contribution. Has the troll finished reading their Sun?

I don't read the Sun.

Have a read of this provision of Bunreacht na hEireann:

Article 9

....

2. Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens.

Now ask yourself, how exactly were "the men and women who fought for freedom" adhering to it?

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I remember Gibraltar - I remember Warrington in 1993 when 2 bombs - one outside a MacDonalds - were placed in cast iron bins in a busy shopping area. 3 year old Jonathan Bell and 12 year old Tim Parry died.

After the bombing the PIRA admitted planting the bombs but denied 'responsibility'



The cowardly murderers of children who planted the bomb were responsible. This was no military target in a just war for Irish independence - this was a terror attack on innocent people. No amount of spin or rhetoric or 'what the Brits did' can ever justify the cold blooded placing of bombs where the casualties are likely to be innocent children.

I remember, for the first time in my life, being ashamed to be Irish.

I didn't quote incidents to provoke a right or wrong debate. I used them to make a more general point. We will go way off topic if we take this tangent.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

To retain any credibility, find out where I said it was right and quote.

Did I say you said it was right? No.

So I take it you know Warrington, Shankhill, proxy bombs etc. was wrong?

Can you be clear and unequivocal on this, without resorting to whataboutery?

brendankelly wrote: »

I do not know what they were doing so please tell me.

Mairéad Farrell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ITN and World in Action did a great investigation piece on the SAS and the shoot to kill policy there, but there never was any doubt about what exactly the Gibraltar 3 were doing there. Maybe you can enlighten us how exactly they were innocent as you originally stated?

Happyman42

View wrote: »

I don't read the Sun.

Have a read of this provision of Bunreacht na hEireann:



Now ask yourself, how exactly were "the men and women who fought for freedom" adhering to it?

What?

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Did I say you said it was right? No.

So I take it you know Warrington, Shankhill, proxy bombs etc. was wrong?

Can you be clear and unequivocal on this, without resorting to whataboutery?

Dunno why I have to keep doing this..........The 3500 deaths in the troubles WHERE ALL WRONG. And it happened and they are not coming back.
Now can we stick to the general discussion?

K-9

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I remember, for the first time in my life, being ashamed to be Irish.

Thousands upon thousands of Irish people signed the books of condolences and the common saying was "not in my name", still resonates to this day and a big part of why MMG is meeting so much opposition.

MMG doesn't get it and his Provo fellow travelling apologists certainly don't.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Dunno why I have to keep doing this..........The 3500 deaths in the troubles WHERE ALL WRONG. And it happened and they are not coming back.
Now can we stick to the general discussion?

Whataboutery.

Do you condemn the people who sent Patsy Gillespie to his death, strapped a bomb to him and forced him to drive it to a British Army base?

Spit it out like a man? Yes, or No?

Wolfe Tone

K 9 I've yet to hear or read anyone express support for the proxy bombs.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Whataboutery.

Do you condemn the people who sent Patsy Gillespie to his death, strapped a bomb to him and forced him to drive it to a British Army base?

Spit it out like a man? Yes, or No?

Well, I did my best to keep it on topic.

Read the thread K-9, it's all been covered before. I can't be arsed with this constant nonsense. Oiche maith.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

K 9 I've yet to hear or read anyone express support for the proxy bombs.

Good, look I respect your opinion, we don't see eye to eye and such is life!

Do you agree there is no excuse for strapping a bomb to Patsy Gillespie, under the threat of his wife's death, and forcing him to drive into a British Army Base, to his certain death, it's wrong?

At the very least it is morally suspect, no matter what the Brits did? The British should take responsibility, so should the IRA?

Surely this is basic stuff everybody can agree on, or humanity is fecked!

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't quote incidents to provoke a right or wrong debate. I used them to make a more general point. We will go way off topic if we take this tangent.

The question isn't that hard. Yes or no would have taken less time.

Bannasidhe

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

K 9 I've yet to hear or read anyone express support for the proxy bombs.

Wolfe - there are many posts on this and other threads on McGuinness where the actions of the PIRA were retrospectively justified by claiming their actions were just as it was a war, or it was in response to Loyalist/ British army aggression, or they were heroes protecting their community. To justify the actions of the PIRA is to condone their methods - including proxy bombs.

There never was and never will be justification for Warrington. If it was a war - then those responsible are guilty of war crimes.

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

K 9 I've yet to hear or read anyone express support for the proxy bombs.

Good, look I respect your opinion, we don't see eye to eye and such is life!

Do you agree there is no excuse for strapping a bomb to Patsy Gillespie, under the threat of his wife's death, and forcing him to drive into a British Army Base, to his certain death, it's wrong?

At the very least it is morally suspect, no matter what the Brits did? The British should take responsibility, so should the IRA?

Surely this is basic stuff everybody can agree on, or humanity is fecked!

I don't think it was justified no. It was wrong.

If you look at it coldly it was a bad move all round, it lost support and alienated people you have to wonder what the mentality of it was, such pondering has led to some believing it took place to weaken the arguement of those who opposed the infant peace process.

However you will always have ambiguity(no spell check on phone ) when you ask to people to condemn the IRA. for this or that because more often than not those who bring up the usual half dozen events, proxy bombs, Enniskillen etc are utterly opposed to the IRA.

If you want to discuss the troubles I think it is unfair to only highlight these events. If we were to talk about the war of independence, a war I assume you think was proper and just, and all I did was bring up 5/6 unsavory things the IRA did EVERY time you would rapidly get frustrated...

The mentality behind people bringing up these events is an attempt to discredit and delegitimise the armed campaign. Of course republicans will resist against those attempts... Not a bullet, not an ounce.

However privatly and amoungst other republicans they would generally say such events were wrong.

I used to display such ambeguity (sp) however I relalise now that such events happen in every war, no matter how just and noble the cause. Civillians were killed during the tan war, and EVERY Irish rebellion, EVERY one. Such events while obviously wrong and regrettable did not make those wars illegitimate. The usual half dozen events people like to bring up and kick around as political footballs don't make the provos war illegitimate.

Responsibility? I think everyone has a degree of responsibility. If we look at things in general I believe that the ultimate responsibility for the troubles lies with the British. No occupation and no partition, no IRA. Now its too simplistic to say that the proxy bombs are the responsibility of the British, obviously not. I think there are degrees of responsibility... Quick example, British bare responsibility for their armed forces getting killed, they put them there. Partial responsibility for say civilians killed in attempts to kill said armed forces (proxy bombs an obvious exception) and then minimal responsibility for things like enniskillen or the proxy bombs. (underlying point being; no brits no problem, such an excuse for things like that is obviously incredibly pathetic, the injustice of partition did not give the IRA carte blanche!) So to summarise: really bad things the IRA did: mostly if not solely their responsibility.

For all those who pontificate about mandates, democracy etc, I ask you this, why do you promulgate out of date British propaganda and not(especially the older folks amoung us who like to look down on ignorant young fools like myself who werent alive in the 70s and 80s) decry the British for illegally partitioning this country? The British created the sectarian statelet and looked on with tacit approval until the body count got too high and they sent in the BA to back that state up. Why is all your condemnation directed at the IRA and not the Brits who without any mandate divided the country? You decry the IRA for having no mandate, yet you act as if Britain had a mandate. If you are consistent you would codemn partition outright.

Wolfe Tone

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

K 9 I've yet to hear or read anyone express support for the proxy bombs.

Wolfe - there are many posts on this and other threads on McGuinness where the actions of the PIRA were retrospectively justified by claiming their actions were just as it was a war, or it was in response to Loyalist/ British army aggression, or they were heroes protecting their community. To justify the actions of the PIRA is to condone their methods - including proxy bombs.

There never was and never will be justification for Warrington. If it was a war - then those responsible are guilty of war crimes.

Apply that standard to the 'old IRA' please. I dont condone all their methods.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I don't think it was justified no. It was wrong.

Grand.

Don't see the need for bringing events from 70 years ago into whether a proxy bomb is morally wrong or not.

It either it is or it isn't.

Shooting people in cold blood in Croke Park was wrong, I don't entertain excuses from that morning, I'm hardly going to entertain excuses from 70 years earlier for proxy bombs!

lugha

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

For all those who pontificate about mandates, democracy etc, I ask you this, why do you promulgate out of date British propaganda and not(especially the older folks amoung us who like to look down on ignorant young fools like myself who werent alive in the 70s and 80s) decry the British for illegally partitioning this country? The British created the sectarian statelet and looked on with tacit approval until the body count got too high and they sent in the BA to back that state up. Why is all your condemnation directed at the IRA and not the Brits who without any mandate divided the country? You decry the IRA for having no mandate, yet you act as if Britain had a mandate. If you are consistent you would codemn partition outright.

Even if I accepted your argument that the partitioning of Ireland was undemocratic, which I don't*, you still have to have a plan for the future. So the IRA can ignore democracy because the Brits did so in the past? So will this argument continue to apply in to the future? Will loyalists in a future united Ireland, accepted by a majority in NI, be immune from criticism of being antidemocratic if they violently oppose this? You are one of the posters that said they would not, and on the basis of democracy.

* To make an argument that it was undemocratic requires the assumption that the constituency of the island of Ireland was the one to consider any constitutional rearrangement, essentially arguing that it was one country in the past. But that was not the only way to proceed, nor would it be the best IMO. In modern conflicts such as in Palestine, who looks at ancient history to decide the way forward? Some do, but they are considered on the lunatic fringe. Most sensible observers, including the majority of Irish republicans, talk about a two state solution.

getz

maybe go the way china did on hong knog one state two systems

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wolfe - there are many posts on this and other threads on McGuinness where the actions of the PIRA were retrospectively justified by claiming their actions were just as it was a war, or it was in response to Loyalist/ British army aggression, or they were heroes protecting their community. To justify the actions of the PIRA is to condone their methods - including proxy bombs.

There never was and never will be justification for Warrington. If it was a war - then those responsible are guilty of war crimes.

^ ^ Which is EXACTLY why you shouldn't engage in the 'politics of condemnation'. If it can scupper a thread here with whataboutery, just think what it can do on the ground in the north.
The GFA was hard wrought for the exact same reason and IS the reason why a line had to be drawn. The debate and any accord goes down the toilet pretty soon.

It happened, you and me condemning it isn't going to unhappen it, it isn't bringing anybody back, over and over again individual acts where condemned in this country, but some of the worst acts where being committed towards the end of the troubles, the situation was getting worse not better. Condemnation, was, at best, a safety valve but fairly useless otherwise. Condemnation never saved ONE life in this country, not ONE.
You and me UNDERSTANDING why it happened though, will allow us to make the changes to ensure it doesn't happen again. That is the achievement of those who thrashed out the GFA.They 'understood' why it and other stuff happened.(as I have tried to do)
I know that these weren't the acts of 'sick' men, they were committed by men in a society that was 'sick'.
How am I so sure? Because they stopped when the right conditions where put in place. Society is no longer sick in NI, parity of esteem has been won, equality of opportunity is enshrined in legislation and Nationalists share the power. Stuff still needs to be done to address the problem of the dissidents though.

Bannasidhe

Happyman42 wrote: »

^ ^ Which is EXACTLY why you shouldn't engage in the 'politics of condemnation'. If it can scupper a thread here with whataboutery, just think what it can do on the ground in the north.
The GFA was hard wrought for the exact same reason and IS the reason why a line had to be drawn. The debate and any accord goes down the toilet pretty soon.

It happened, you and me condemning it isn't going to unhappen it, it isn't bringing anybody back, over and over again individual acts where condemned in this country, but some of the worst acts where being committed towards the end of the troubles, the situation was getting worse not better. Condemnation, was, at best, a safety valve but fairly useless otherwise. Condemnation never saved ONE life in this country, not ONE.
You and me UNDERSTANDING why it happened though, will allow us to make the changes to ensure it doesn't happen again. That is the achievement of those who thrashed out the GFA.They 'understood' why it and other stuff happened.(as I have tried to do)
I know that these weren't the acts of 'sick' men, they were committed by men in a society that was 'sick'.
How am I so sure? Because they stopped when the right conditions where put in place. Society is no longer sick in NI, parity of esteem has been won, equality of opportunity is enshrined in legislation and Nationalists share the power. Stuff still needs to be done to address the problem of the dissidents though.

We do need to condemn and we need to acknowledge the atrocities committed by all sides in the conflict. The PIRA claimed to be acting on behalf of Irish nationalists - so it is up to Irish nationalists to speak out and say the murder of children was, and always will be, evil.
What is instead happening is excuse making while dissident republicans are continuing to engage in bomb making - it is only a matter of time before the explosions begin again - yet this is all meant to be in the cause of a united Ireland (an English construct in the first place).

If we were to have this united Ireland it would include the Loyalist community - how do we incorporate them into 'our' country? We will need to make it 'their' country too. Unionists believed in their cause just as passionately as do Nationalists. They feared living in a united Ireland would expose them to the strictures of Rome - guess what...that is exactly what happened in the 26 counties. They believed they were best served politically and economically by remaining in the Union - they certainly may have had a valid point there.

Unionists - even hard liners like Paisley - came to the table in NI and agreed to a power-sharing executive and should get as much credit for the GFA as SF. They are clear, however, they wish to remain part of the Union - and this is their right. Unless you advocate we force them into a unification they don't want - risking a return to violence as they fight for their cause - or just tell them to move. Why should they? Should we tell everyone who isn't 'our' kind of Irish to get the hell out if they don't like it? How do we decide who is 'us' and who is 'them'? Religion? Ethnicity? Surname? - If it's the latter then Adams with his 'English' surname could be in a bit of a pickle...

So how do we move forward? How do we convince the Unionist population that there is a genuine place for them in a United Ireland while also excusing the atrocities committed by the PIRA?

These are the issues I don't hear SF address - the practicalities of how to create this United Ireland they want. It is relevant here as McG says he will be president of 32 counties - yet a sizeable proportion of the population of 6 of those counties consider themselves as British subjects and completely outside the jurisdiction of the republic's president - which legally they are. So how is McG going to represent them as president? Or do we just ignore their existence?

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We do need to condemn and we need to acknowledge the atrocities committed by all sides in the conflict. The PIRA claimed to be acting on behalf of Irish nationalists - so it is up to Irish nationalists to speak out and say the murder of children was, and always will be, evil.

No they didn't, they have never claimed to act for us all. We, the Irish, obsessed with how others see us, assumed that they where acting for us and apologised. Nobody rational ever blamed ALL the Irish.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What is instead happening is excuse making while dissident republicans are continuing to engage in bomb making - it is only a matter of time before the explosions begin again

Here's an experiment....I condemn all killings and killers.





Has it stopped yet??? Action will stop them, removing the reasons for their existence will stop them. Condemning them and refusing to talk to them ....won't. Have we not learned at least that much from history?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If we were to have this united Ireland it would include the Loyalist community - how do we incorporate them into 'our' country? We will need to make it 'their' country too. Unionists believed in their cause just as passionately as do Nationalists. They feared living in a united Ireland would expose them to the strictures of Rome - guess what...that is exactly what happened in the 26 counties. They believed they were best served politically and economically by remaining in the Union - they certainly may have had a valid point there.

'Democracy REQUIRES minority rights'.
Show me how that ^ ^is not the model in play right now in NI. SF are the minority, they have accepted that role as long as they have parity of esteem and equal opportunities.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Unionists - even hard liners like Paisley - came to the table in NI and agreed to a power-sharing executive and should get as much credit for the GFA as SF.

No argument from me....I have always been careful to refer to 'the brave men and women' who sat down to thrash out that agreement.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are clear, however, they wish to remain part of the Union - and this is their right. Unless you advocate we force them into a unification they don't want - risking a return to violence as they fight for their cause - or just tell them to move. Why should they? Should we tell everyone who isn't 'our' kind of Irish to get the hell out if they don't like it? How do we decide who is 'us' and who is 'them'? Religion? Ethnicity? Surname? - If it's the latter then Adams with his 'English' surname could be in a bit of a pickle...

So how do we move forward? How do we convince the Unionist population that there is a genuine place for them in a United Ireland while also excusing the atrocities committed by the PIRA?

These are the issues I don't hear SF address - the practicalities of how to create this United Ireland they want. It is relevant here as McG says he will be president of 32 counties - yet a sizeable proportion of the population of 6 of those counties consider themselves as British subjects and completely outside the jurisdiction of the republic's president - which legally they are. So how is McG going to represent them as president? Or do we just ignore their existence?

All covered by the GFA and the model which SF is living by in NI right now. If and when a majority wish to be in a United Ireland then what is required is a 'democracy which enshrines and cherishes minority rights'. Nobody is or should be afraid of that.

KeithAFC

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Apply that standard to the 'old IRA' please. I dont condone all their methods.

The old IRA claimed to be fighting for ALL the Irish people. Which of course was a lie.

Bannasidhe

Happyman42 wrote: »

No they didn't, they have never claimed to act for us all. We, the Irish, obsessed with how others see us, assumed that they where acting for us and apologised. Nobody rational ever blamed ALL the Irish.



Here's an experiment....I condemn all killings and killers.





Has it stopped yet??? Action will stop them, removing the reasons for their existence will stop them. Condemning them and refusing to talk to them ....won't. Have we not learned at least that much from history?



'Democracy REQUIRES minority rights'.
Show me how that ^ ^is not the model in play right now in NI.


No argument from me....I have always been careful to refer to 'the brave men and women' who sat down to thrash out that agreement.



All covered by the GFA and the model by which SF is living by in NI right now. If and when a majority wish to be in a United Ireland then what is required is a 'democracy which enshrines and cherishes minority rights'. Nobody is or should be afraid of that.

and if a majority in either the republic or NI vote no to unification - what then?

If I was living in NI I would have to think long and hard whether I wanted to join the banana republic that currently exists in the 26 counties. Do we say - Come Join us and share in our sovereign debt? Come drive through our pots holes? Forget the NHS - we have a trolley waiting for you in a HSE hospital for only 100 euro admission charge (further charges will apply). Join us and watch our elected representatives get off scot free when caught fiddling expenses?

You didn't address my main question though - how do we get Unionists to agree to join a United Ireland? What is in it for them?

maccored

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and if a majority in either the republic or NI vote no to unification - what then?

If I was living in NI I would have to think long and hard whether I wanted to join the banana republic that currently exists in the 26 counties. Do we say - Come Join us and share in our sovereign debt? Come drive through our pots holes? Forget the NHS - we have a trolley waiting for you in a HSE hospital for only 100 euro admission charge (further charges will apply). Join us and watch our elected representatives get off scot free when caught fiddling expenses?

You didn't address my main question though - how do we get Unionists to agree to join a United Ireland? What is in it for them?

surely it depends on how you envisage a united ireland happening. If it was to happen overnight, then yes, there'd be issues combining both states and with people who disagree. more realistically though, it would be a very, very gradual process that would probably be worked towards over decades

maccored

lugha wrote: »

Yes, there is certainly some confusion in the thinking of nationalists. I suspect they, or many people like them, would see no contradiction in roundly condemning republican dissidents who, as they would see it, are still fighting for our freedom.

surely nationalists would realise that political progression wasnt on the table 30 years ago, whereas it is now. when given the choice of arms or proper political representation, they'd go for the politics. thats why nationalists have a hard time trying to come to terms with 'dissidents' continuing to fight.