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

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Aspirational is all very well and good (I aspire to winning the Euro Millions) but is simply is not the current political reality.

He is just recognising this:

=GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to
identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they
may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both
British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would
not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

and I don't think the Unionists would have a problem with. If they had, we'd have heard it long ago.

hangon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So do you agree that McGuinness is being presumptuous in stating he will be president of 32 counties when he has no mandate to do so from a sizeable percentage of the population of 6 of those counties which lie outside of the political jurisdiction of the republic?

is'nt it the case that all the candidates have to play to their powerbase?
it is good i agree to fully respect the GFA to the letter as well as the spirit(was'nt it approx 90% north and south who said YES?)
McGuinness would look really silly if he did not say he was running to represent the 32 Counties.

maccored

OMD wrote: »

If the queen said she would be queen for all the people of Ireland north and south I bet you and many others would have a problem

what in gods name do the queen and martin mcguinness have in common? really, talk about whataboutery.

maccored

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No, I have an issue with him prioritising a portion of the electorate of a foreign jurisdiction over the electorate of the state he is seeking election in.

He is running for the office of president of the 26 county republic of Ireland. His mandate, should he be elected, will come only from those Irish citizens who are currently resident in the 26 counties. Election would not give him any right to claim to represent the 32 counties as the electorate of 6 of those counties cannot endorse him due to not actually living in the republic.

The fact that You may not like it - doesn't make it a bad argument.

its all in the island of ireland. i still think youre creating an argument rather than resolving anything

Liam Byrne

OMD wrote: »

maccored wrote: »

So you have an issue with him treating Irish people in the north as Irish? I'm sure the unionists won't mind as much as you claim they will - people have moved on a bit from the bull****. Unless if course you're just arguing for the sake of it of course. Either way, I don't think it's much of an argument tbh.

If the queen said she would be queen for all the people of Ireland north and south I bet you and many others would have a problem

That's a ridiculous argument because "and south" doesn't even remotely come into that scenario. It's outside of her jurisdiction, in the exact same way as Northern Ireland is outside of the jurisdiction of whoever gets elected.

theRepublican

mcguinness is a republican, he fought as a republican now hes using politics to further his republican goals.Republicans will and should vote for him the same way socialists will prob vote for higgins and people who like tv and dont really care too much about politics will vote for gallagher.The north was taken from irish people through violence murder and bloodshed, i think wether right or wrong, it will only return to the people of ireland through murder and bloodshed there is and will be no peaceful sollution that completely satisfies unionists and republicans.I think if mcguinness gets in the people here in the south will be voting for a united ireland even if the president doesnt actually have the power to achieve that.

KELTICKNIGHTT

theRepublican wrote: »

mcguinness is a republican, he fought as a republican now hes using politics to further his republican goals.Republicans will and should vote for him the same way socialists will prob vote for higgins and people who like tv and dont really care too much about politics will vote for gallagher.The north was taken from irish people through violence murder and bloodshed, i think wether right or wrong, it will only return to the people of ireland through murder and bloodshed there is and will be no peaceful sollution that completely satisfies unionists and republicans.I think if mcguinness gets in the people here in the south will be voting for a united ireland even if the president doesnt actually have the power to achieve that.

sf/ira party speech

Seth Brundle

theRepublican wrote: »

The north was taken from irish people through violence murder and bloodshed, i think wether right or wrong, it will only return to the people of ireland through murder and bloodshed there is and will be no peaceful sollution that completely satisfies unionists and republicans.

If a united Ireland requires one death then it is not worth it.

theRepublican wrote: »

I think if mcguinness gets in the people here in the south will be voting for a united ireland even if the president doesnt actually have the power to achieve that.

Why would we be voting for a united Ireland if it will be achieved through murder and bloodshed (as you just said)

Mayo Exile

Just another observation Liam.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Here's the point - the bomb shouldn't be there. And it shouldn't be detonated while there are civilians around.

Ideally yes.

Anything else is murder. Planned and executed.

?

You can’t apply this logic actually. If a plan with a single goal has a different outcome, is the original plan not mistaken?

A “calculated mistake” is an oxymoron?

Usually the concept of a mistake as a defence plea is generally not entertained by criminal law in domestic cases. However in a war or conflict situation, such a decision would be considered not applicable by one or both protagonists.

If a planned operation against a target goes wrong and leads to unintended civilian deaths, both sides will say it was a mistake.

Deciding whether a conflict is actually a conflict in the first place is another argument entirely.

barrmur

theRepublican wrote: »

mcguinness is a republican, he fought as a republican now hes using politics to further his republican goals.Republicans will and should vote for him the same way socialists will prob vote for higgins and people who like tv and dont really care too much about politics will vote for gallagher.The north was taken from irish people through violence murder and bloodshed, i think wether right or wrong, it will only return to the people of ireland through murder and bloodshed there is and will be no peaceful sollution that completely satisfies unionists and republicans.I think if mcguinness gets in the people here in the south will be voting for a united ireland even if the president doesnt actually have the power to achieve that.

First time post from a new "shinner" member on boards. Seems SF/IRA are circling the wagons for the final push.

Happyman42

barrmur wrote: »

First time post from a new "shinner" member on boards. Seems SF/IRA are circling the wagons for the final push.

How do you circle a 'wagon'?

maccored

barrmur wrote: »

First time post from a new "shinner" member on boards. Seems SF/IRA are circling the wagons for the final push.

and who are these mystical 'SF/IRA' people?

Happyman42

maccored wrote: »

and who are these mystical 'SF/IRA' people?

In the last 10 or more pages he and the poster he quoted have the lowest post count. :rolleyes:

KELTICKNIGHTT

barrmur wrote: »

First time post from a new "shinner" member on boards. Seems SF/IRA are circling the wagons for the final push.

been a few sf party new comers on boards,sf behind in polls so getting as much media coverage as they can

barrmur

Happyman42 wrote: »

How do you circle a 'wagon'?

Need more than one for a start. I assume you have heard the phrase before? If not try google.

barrmur

Happyman42 wrote: »

In the last 10 or more pages he and the poster he quoted have the lowest post count. :rolleyes:

Your point being?? Not all of us can spend all day posting ya know!!

Happyman42

barrmur wrote: »

Your point being?? Not all of us can spend all day posting ya know!!

Well I would be very disappointed if I sent posters on to specifically back the party based on today's activity on this and other threads. Not exactly awash with pro SF opinion is it?

You just waded in with the usual bile without checking facts.

barrmur

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well I would be very disappointed if I sent posters on to specifically back the party based on today's activity on this and other threads. Not exactly awash with pro SF opinion is it?

You just waded in with the usual bile without checking facts.

I just mentioned that the poster in question, who also "waded in" as you put it seems to have a very strong view on the issue condoning murder and bloodshed to return the north to the Irish people. Are you in agreement?? It seemed unusual that someone with this strong a view would only enter the fray now.

At your request I will however endeavor to go back and read all 735 odd posts before I make another comment so as to avoid "wading in" again,

As for the SF presence I think there is plenty present on this thread as they are entitled to be.

Happyman42

barrmur wrote: »

As for the SF presence I think there is plenty present on this thread as they are entitled to.

Now you're getting it! ....carry on.

isthatit

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nonetheless, the electorate is restricted to Irish citizen's currently resident in the republic. Irish citizens who live within British jurisdiction have Elizabeth II as Head of State - in the same way as Irish citizen's in Australia, Canada etc do, while those in the U.S. have Obama. When I lived in London, Elizabeth II was the head of state of the country I lived in - regardless of my anti-monarchy views I had no choice but to accept that. I did not have a vote in who became president of Ireland (Mary R) as I was not resident in the 26 counties at the time of her election.

The Constitution does not grant voting rights to ANY Irish citizen resident outside the State.

Aspirational is all very well and good (I aspire to winning the Euro Millions) but is simply is not the current political reality.

and yet the irish people north of the imaginary line that splits this country in two. who have been ignored by all the irish parties (particularily fine gael) since the time they where forced against there wishes into a british statelet. where there rights where violently denied might be able to take some hope in the future when they see there fellow irish men and women elect someone who has put their life on the line to protect, defend and try and make a better life for them

theRepublican

i am not a member of SF, i'm just a republican expressing my opinion i tought thats what this site is for?


was anything i said wrong?


will people not be voting for him to back a political campaign for a united ireland thats basically what the party is for i just personally dont think it can be achieved through politics i dont necceserally want it to be achieved through bloodshed but i think that might be the only way.

barrmur

isthatit wrote: »

and yet the irish people north of the imaginary line that splits this country in two. who have been ignored by all the irish parties (particularily fine gael) since the time they where forced against there wishes into a british statelet. where there rights where violently denied might be able to take some hope in the future when they see there fellow irish men and women elect someone who has put their life on the line to protect, defend and try and make a better life for them

Noble idea but the fact remains that the "imaginary line that splits this country in two" that you refer to is actually a legitimate national border. If people in the North were to vote for the president of Eire it is analogous to the Spanish being able to vote in French elections, it makes no sense. Honestly I do not see people in the north being able to vote once the border is in place and I am not sure what the national appetite is for its removal.

barrmur

theRepublican wrote: »

i am not a member of SF, i'm just a republican expressing my opinion i tought thats what this site is for?


was anything i said wrong?


will people not be voting for him to back a political campaign for a united ireland thats basically what the party is for i just personally dont think it can be achieved through politics i dont necceserally want it to be achieved through bloodshed but i think that might be the only way.

Then if this is the case it not worth it. MMG et al tried it and it does not work. Do you really think a united Ireland can be achieved by going back to what happened over the last 30 odd years?

KELTICKNIGHTT

theRepublican wrote: »

i am not a member of SF, i'm just a republican expressing my opinion i tought thats what this site is for?


was anything i said wrong?


will people not be voting for him to back a political campaign for a united ireland thats basically what the party is for i just personally dont think it can be achieved through politics i dont necceserally want it to be achieved through bloodshed but i think that might be the only way.

There's not going to be a united Ireland as you put it ,,Till a majority of people in north only want it and right now,,ISN'T going to Happen
don't trust anyone who supports Marty Mc guinness
Don't trust there views
don't trust that sf/ira have south interests
,sf/ira only have northern interests in view.
poster coming on here don't just say they support sf and mc guinness
more like a sinn fein party ploy to get late support

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

If a planned operation against a target goes wrong and leads to unintended civilian deaths, both sides will say it was a mistake.

If the target is a location where civilians are present, then they are part of the target.

It is up to those doing the bombing - if they want to ensure that they are not seen to be targetting civilians - to ensure that the building or street is empty.

Suggesting anything else is just making excuses.

And this isn't an anti-SF/IRA view; I have the same opinion of the Americans & British re Baghdad......by shelling the city containing civilians they set themselves up as murderers.

Liam Byrne

theRepublican wrote: »

i just personally dont think it can be achieved through politics i dont necceserally want it to be achieved through bloodshed but i think that might be the only way.

That "necessarily" is an objectionable caveat.

You either do or you don't.

Most decent people - even those who previously excused McGun & Co - would unequivocally say that if it includes murder and violence and bloodshed then they don't want it.

Mayo Exile

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If the target is a location where civilians are present, then they are part of the target.

It is up to those doing the bombing - if they want to ensure that they are not seen to be targetting civilians - to ensure that the building or street is empty.

Suggesting anything else is just making excuses.

And this isn't an anti-SF/IRA view; I have the same opinion of the Americans & British re Baghdad......by shelling the city containing civilians they set themselves up as murderers.

No. Your not addressing my points re a plan as opposed to a mistake whatsoever.

Post wasn't meant with any particular group in mind either.

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If the target is a location where civilians are present, then they are part of the target.

It is up to those doing the bombing - if they want to ensure that they are not seen to be targetting civilians - to ensure that the building or street is empty.

Suggesting anything else is just making excuses.

And this isn't an anti-SF/IRA view; I have the same opinion of the Americans & British re Baghdad......by shelling the city containing civilians they set themselves up as murderers.

No. Your not addressing my points re a plan as opposed to a mistake whatsoever.

Post wasn't meant with any particular group in mind either.

That's because there is no mistake. Leaving a bomb on a street or on a hotel will kill and injure innocents.

Unless those planting it evacuate the area themselves then they are responsible for any murders.

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If the target is a location where civilians are present, then they are part of the target.

It is up to those doing the bombing - if they want to ensure that they are not seen to be targetting civilians - to ensure that the building or street is empty.

Suggesting anything else is just making excuses.

And this isn't an anti-SF/IRA view; I have the same opinion of the Americans & British re Baghdad......by shelling the city containing civilians they set themselves up as murderers.

No. Your not addressing my points re a plan as opposed to a mistake whatsoever.

Post wasn't meant with any particular group in mind either.

That's because there is no mistake. Leaving a bomb on a street or on a hotel will kill and injure innocents.

Unless those planting it evacuate the area themselves then they are responsible for any murders.

bobbysands81

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's because there is no mistake. Leaving a bomb on a street or on a hotel will kill and injure innocents.

Unless those planting it evacuate the area themselves then they are responsible for any murders.

Has anyone said differently?

They need to take responsibility for their actions but in quickly became killing civilians, or even targetting them, was counterproductive for the aims of the IRA but "beneficial" for the aims of the British security services.