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

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Countries the world over have trouble keeping the thugish elements of their armies (what army doesn't require a thug element?) in line at the best of times. If you lived here on the border you would know of fist fights at check points and other silly bugger stuff that never got reported.

By and large though there has been a complete cessation by the IRA and you still haven't explained that in any convincing way.

Which showed they could be disciplined when it suited them, besides the likes of McCartney murderers and the likes.

John Major tried to insist on decommissioning before SF got to the table, it was quietly dropped when the IRA refused point blank to do it. Hardly the actions of people who where feeling their campaign was futile.....or would you care to spin that fact too?

Yeah, and it proved a mistake doing so, just delaying the inevitable.

Pand

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, and it proved a mistake doing so, just delaying the inevitable.

IRA arms was the biggest barginning chip Sinn Fein held during the peace talks, without it the unionists wouldn't have conceded nearly as enough in the Good Friday Agreement. Hardly a mistake on Republicans part

Mayo Exile

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Again, nice cop-out. Care to answer the point re "murder" on Bloody Sunday before you go, or is that double-standard too inconvenient a contradiction ?

As requested Liam.

Bloody Sunday wasn't murder because they didn't "plan" to kill civilians - they just let off guns where civilians happened to be present, in the same way as the IRA let of bombs where civilians happened to be present.

Shallow analysis really. If one side did one thing then the other side must have done the same. Doesn’t mean anything at all to me. No taking into account re plans, deliberate actions v mistakes, individual scenarios etc.

Do those who believe the IRA bombs weren't murder also believe that the Bloody Sunday shootings weren't murder?

Here you’ve linked multiple general incidences, i.e. “IRA bombs” to a single specific incident – “Bloody Sunday” in the same sentence.

Many IRA bombs killed only soldiers etc, and since you said elsewhere that “combatants can expect to die”, I’d assume you wouldn’t object to these occurences using your own line of reasoning on incidences where civilians weren’t involved. Obviously other IRA bombs killed civilians.

Now as to Bloody Sunday itself, what was the British Army plan on the day? Did they plan to kill civilians? Then it’s murder. Was it a search operation gone wrong? Therefore it wasn’t murder. Who’s to know? What was the original plan? We can only deliberate on this. Considering the incident on its own, I believe myself it was murder.

So if the original plan of the British Army is disputed (deliberate or not?) and if Bloody Sunday is considered to have occurred within the parameters of a conflict then I think that international humanitarian law and associated treaties should apply here re treatment of civilians by armed groups, even if the Saville Tribunal has already deliberated on the event.

And yes Liam, I still believe in the basic concept that a deliberate action is different to a mistake when applied to a conflict situation re civilian deaths. However I also believe that international law should have a right to decide to deliberate, on which is which, and proceed accordingly. Apologies if I didn’t mention this earlier, it wasn’t a deliberate omission.

Both the IRA and the British Army should be subject to this process leading to convictions if deemed appropriate, thus avoiding charges of hypocrisy. No contradictions here I think………..

Seth Brundle

I'm actually confused about the IRA murder of garda Gerry McCabe and Sinn Fein's refusal to condemn it. What changed recently within SF that now allows wee Martin to condemn the cold blooded murder?

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Shallow analysis really. If one side did one thing then the other side must have done the same. Doesn’t mean anything at all to me. No taking into account re plans, deliberate actions v mistakes, individual scenarios etc.

It's not an analysis - it's an indication that apologists give the IRA the benefit of the doubt while assuming the worst of the other "side", whereas the rest of us assume the worst of all thugs.

Many IRA bombs killed only soldiers etc, and since you said elsewhere that “combatants can expect to die”, I’d assume you wouldn’t object to these occurences using your own line of reasoning on incidences where civilians weren’t involved.

Obviously other IRA bombs killed civilians.

600 is a HELL of a lot, and deserves more than an "obviously" afterthought.

Now as to Bloody Sunday itself, what was the British Army plan on the day? Did they plan to kill civilians? Then it’s murder. Was it a search operation gone wrong? Therefore it wasn’t murder. Who’s to know? What was the original plan? We can only deliberate on this. Considering the incident on its own, I believe myself it was murder.

So you're allowed believe that, and yet we're not allowed believe the same thing about the IRA ? We're arguing because of something that you can't prove but are happy to believe, and yet you object to me when I'm the one that treats like with like ?

No contradictions here I think………..

No, just a blatant bias and double-standards, which is - if you take out the "sides" aspect that you've aligned yourself to - a contradiction.

Mayo Exile

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's not an analysis - it's an indication that apologists give the IRA the benefit of the doubt while assuming the worst of the other "side",

Don't know where your getting that conclusion from. I didn't mention any side in my response to you. Also, you and me actually agreed on what hypocrisy was. See bottom of your post #551.

whereas the rest of us assume the worst of all thugs.

"All thugs" - no idea what that means.

600 is a HELL of a lot, and deserves more than an "obviously" afterthought.

Stop reading between the lines. Theres no motive intended here.

So you're allowed believe that, and yet we're not allowed believe the same thing about the IRA ? We're arguing because of something that you can't prove but are happy to believe, and yet you object to me when I'm the one that treats like with like ?

Never said you weren't allowed. Acknowledged you opinion loads of times up to now, if not agreeing with it. Wow, thanks for letting me actually believe something. Never objected, just disagreed.

]No, just a blatant bias and double-standards, which is - if you take out the "sides" aspect that you've aligned yourself to - a contradiction.

Utter nonsense really. Convenient of you to forget about what I said re international law, etc.

Mentioning international law again Liam, your statement that:

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

Anything else is murder. Planned and executed.

is wrong according to international law.

In this Wiki article on "Distinction" Luis Moreno-Ocampo who was the Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, says that:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[3] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Link to actual letter by Ocampo: http://www.scribd.com/doc/336550/otp-letter-to-senders-re-iraq-9-february-2006

See page 5/10.

K-9

kbannon wrote: »

I'm actually confused about the IRA murder of garda Gerry McCabe and Sinn Fein's refusal to condemn it. What changed recently within SF that now allows wee Martin to condemn the cold blooded murder?

Not quite as meally mouthed as per usual, or the IRA apologists on here.

I'll give him credit there.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Which showed they could be disciplined when it suited them, besides the likes of McCartney murderers and the likes.

And it's not too hard to make the leap and see how much trouble 'renegade' operators can cause you. Which I think a lot of this was.
Anybody who thinks that Gerry and Martin have a secret slush fund or are living in lavish bunkers really needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, and it proved a mistake doing so, just delaying the inevitable.

A mistake???????
You need to study the detail of what was going on at the time.
Major backed down on decommissioning, SF where allowed to the table because they signed a declaration stating that the believed in non-violent means. The IRA issued a statement saying 'they didn't'.
That is called 'bargaining'. It kept the British and the Loyalists concentrated. What bargaining chip would they have had if they had decommissioned?

Once the agreement was thrashed out to everyone's satisfaction, and signed, the IRA immediately declared a cessation.
The British were forced to separate SF from the IRA. Do you think that was what they believed or was it the usual British political expediency and cynicism?

maccored

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then may I suggest republicans should shame the British government into acknowledging responsibility for the actions of previous British governments by fully acknowledging it's own actions?

Saying where the bodies are buried would be a good start so families can have closure...

how anyone thinks the IRA have a filing cabinet full of information on where people where buried, or that they kept documentation always gives me a good laugh. Also, in case the point passed you by - republicans have been asking the british government to come clean for decades. Look how honest the british are being in regards the dublin/monaghan bombings ... exactly - not very.

Happyman42

maccored wrote: »

how anyone thinks the IRA have a filing cabinet full of information on where people where buried, or that they kept documentation always gives me a good laugh. Also, in case the point passed you by - republicans have been asking the british government to come clean for decades. Look how honest the british are being in regards the dublin/monaghan bombings ... exactly - not very.

Probably buried at night in remote areas by members who were not involved as much. A drive around some of those wildernesses like the Monaghan - Tyrone borderlands would show how hard it is.
There is absolutely no political advantage in withholding the whereabouts of these bodies so my guess is that they just don't know. Another harsh and tragic reality of the conflict.

Seth Brundle

maccored wrote: »

how anyone thinks the IRA have a filing cabinet full of information on where people where buried, or that they kept documentation always gives me a good laugh. Also, in case the point passed you by - republicans have been asking the british government to come clean for decades. Look how honest the british are being in regards the dublin/monaghan bombings ... exactly - not very.

With respect, if I murdered someone and secretly buried their body, I'd have a fairly good idea 20 years later as to where I buried it. It would haunt me until I died but maybe the fact that I disagree with murder means I'm different.
Regarding the British, I'm not condoning their actions one bit, but in fairness, none of their former Chiefs of Staff are seeking the Irish presidency, are they?

Happyman42

kbannon wrote: »

I'm not condoning their actions one bit,

Some of us, a growing some, believe that Irish men and women stood up and reacted to those actions. Mincing around the streets of Belfast or Dungannon with flowers and protest banners and chanting (which is what you and Liam Byrne reckon should have been done) wasn't going to cut the mustard.
The lid came off and nobody was able to put it back on, until brave men and women sat down ON EQUAL terms thrashed out a deal.
Instead of recriminations us SOME will reward that achievement by recognising what McGuinness and his ilk have done for all 32 counties.

foggy_lad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Some of us, a growing some, believe that Irish men and women stood up and reacted to those actions. Mincing around the streets of Belfast or Dungannon with flowers and protest banners and chanting (which is what you and Liam Byrne reckon should have been done) wasn't going to cut the mustard.
The lid came off and nobody was able to put it back on, until brave men and women sat down ON EQUAL terms thrashed out a deal.
Instead of recriminations us SOME will reward that achievement by recognising what McGuinness and his ilk have done for all 32 counties.

McGuinness and his kind were the people who took the lid off and in such a way that it could never be put back on.

None of these murderers were in any way brave and I would struggle to call them real men. Real men take on a challenge instead of just blowing hell out of anything they don't like, those are the actions of a thick stubborn child.

Can'tseeme

kbannon wrote: »

Regarding the British, I'm not condoning their actions one bit, but in fairness, none of their former Chiefs of Staff are seeking the Irish presidency, are they?

But I bet you thought the Queen (head of the British Army) coming over was a great idea alongside others of the British establishment. But when Enda asked Dave Cameron for files on the Dublin/Monaghan bombings he was told to stfu.

Happyman42

foggy_lad wrote: »

McGuinness and his kind were the people who took the lid off and in such a way that it could never be put back on.

None of these murderers were in any way brave and I would struggle to call them real men. Real men take on a challenge instead of just blowing hell out of anything they don't like, those are the actions of a thick stubborn child.

I live in the real world Foggy Lad. Who was sitting around that table thrashing out the deal? Who was accomodated and who got the British and the Unionists to recognise the Nationalist community as their EQUALS. Who got the British to agree;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish.....

IT WAS NOT THE SDLP!

So stand with those Irish men and women who bask in the freedoms others have achieved by sacrificing the ultimate but who refuse to accept what had to be done, if you wish.....but as time moves on that will be a diminishing group because the future will realise that NI was always unfinished business and successive 'Irish men and women' abandoned and then ignored what was happening. And when the lid came off they colluded with the British to make matters worse, not better.

Can'tseeme

foggy_lad wrote: »

McGuinness and his kind were the people who took the lid off and in such a way that it could never be put back on.

None of these murderers were in any way brave and I would struggle to call them real men. Real men take on a challenge instead of just blowing hell out of anything they don't like, those are the actions of a thick stubborn child.

I'm sorry but it was the UVF, RUC violence and Paisley's anti-catholic/nationalist rally calls that kicked things off in the late 60's.

Happyman42

Can'tseeme wrote: »

But I bet you thought the Queen (head of the British Army) coming over was a great idea alongside others of the British establishment. But when Enda asked Dave Cameron for files on the Dublin/Monaghan bombings he was told to stfu.

Too right!
I didn't see any of our 'impartial media' leading with statements of protest from victims of the Crown forces when their leader came a calling. All was made to look rosy in the garden for that. :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

Happyman42 wrote: »

Some of us, a growing some, believe that Irish men and women stood up and reacted to those actions. Mincing around the streets of Belfast or Dungannon with flowers and protest banners and chanting (which is what you and Liam Byrne reckon should have been done) wasn't going to cut the mustard.

So John Hume spent his time mincing around while the real men spent their time trying to achieve equality through bloodshed?
I think I'll organise a facebook campaign to have Hume stripped of the Nobel prize! :rolleyes:

Happyman42 wrote: »

Instead of recriminations us SOME will reward that achievement by recognising what McGuinness and his ilk have done for all 32 counties.

I certainly recognise what McG and his ilk have done for the 32 counties! However, thankfully we have moved so far on since then.

Can'tseeme wrote: »

But I bet you thought the Queen (head of the British Army) coming over was a great idea alongside others of the British establishment. But when Enda asked Dave Cameron for files on the Dublin/Monaghan bombings he was told to stfu.

I was proud that as a nation, most of us are mature enough to welcome the head of the UK. I do disagree with several actions taken by the British but is the best way forward to play the stubborn bugger and ignore them until we get everything we want?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the Presidential election, except for the fact that what I assume are your SF sympathies show that SF has not really moved on despite the glossy PR image they are trying to portray.

Seth Brundle

Happyman42 wrote: »

Too right!
I didn't see any of our 'impartial media' leading with statements of protest from victims of the Crown forces when their leader came a calling. All was made to look rosy in the garden for that. :rolleyes:

You're right. They never mentioned how the Brits being the ones in charge, were responsible for the effects of the famine. :rolleyes:

Look at it another way, the IRA murdered several civilians in NI and the UK. neither Liz nor the British media got their knickers in a twist over that!

maccored

you are assuming those who done the burying are still alive - they very well may not be.

A~s far as the british are concerned, the point put to me was that republicans should be bringing their complaints to the british. I was jsut stating they already have. Though i do find it interesting the idea of only questioning the moral standing of a government if one of them was standing for presidential election ... otherwise just ignore it.

kbannon wrote: »

With respect, if I murdered someone and secretly buried their body, I'd have a fairly good idea 20 years later as to where I buried it. It would haunt me until I died but maybe the fact that I disagree with murder means I'm different.
Regarding the British, I'm not condoning their actions one bit, but in fairness, none of their former Chiefs of Staff are seeking the Irish presidency, are they?

maccored

K-9 wrote: »

Not quite as meally mouthed as per usual, or the IRA apologists on here.

I'll give him credit there.

who are the 'IRA apologists on here' if you dont mind me asking?

Seth Brundle

maccored wrote: »

you are assuming those who done the burying are still alive - they very well may not be.

True, but as I have a conscience, I would ensure that there would be some way of letting their family find out. As such, personally, I would have left details somewhere (possibly with a solicitor).

MajorMax

The Aquaduct?

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

But I bet you thought the Queen (head of the British Army) coming over was a great idea alongside others of the British establishment. But when Enda asked Dave Cameron for files on the Dublin/Monaghan bombings he was told to stfu.

And yet when that soldier asked McGuinness to name the thug who murdered his dad, McGun said he didn't know, and the apologists accept that and defend him.

As usual, stunning double-standards from the Shinners.

Happyman42

kbannon wrote: »

So John Hume spent his time mincing around while the real men spent their time trying to achieve equality through bloodshed?
I think I'll organise a facebook campaign to have Hume stripped of the Nobel prize! :rolleyes:

Again, get into the detail of the time and you will realise who the real players where.
Hume was laughed at by Maggie and the Unionists...'Out Out Out' when he published the findings of the New Ireland forum.
Nobody is trying to write Hume out of the history, he just wasn't as big a player as the British and the Irish Governments wanted him to be.

kbannon wrote: »

I certainly recognise what McG and his ilk have done for the 32 counties! However, thankfully we have moved so far on since then.
I was proud that as a nation, most of us are mature enough to welcome the head of the UK. I do disagree with several actions taken by the British but is the best way forward to play the stubborn bugger and ignore them until we get everything we want?
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the Presidential election, except for the fact that what I assume are your SF sympathies show that SF has not really moved on despite the glossy PR image they are trying to portray.

lol....nice try. SF have not set the recrimination and retribution agenda nor are they ignoring the positives.

old hippy

Thing that worries me; look how SF ruined the 6 counties. I really hope McG has changed; I don't want to see the Republic ruined (anymore than it is) either.

maccored

you;d leave details of an illegal burial (and maybe more than one) with a solicitor? I dont think that would have happened. In reality, the person would have been buried (a mountain top in the dark is a big place) and the details died with the people who buried them.

kbannon wrote: »

True, but as I have a conscience, I would ensure that there would be some way of letting their family find out. As such, personally, I would have left details somewhere (possibly with a solicitor).

maccored

how did they ruin the 6 counties?

Personally I thought the british government and their unionist allies done a good enough job of ruining the place

old hippy wrote: »

Thing that worries me; look how SF ruined the 6 counties. I really hope McG has changed; I don't want to see the Republic ruined (anymore than it is) either.

old hippy

maccored wrote: »

how did they ruin the 6 counties?

Personally I thought the british government and their unionist allies done a good enough job of ruining the place

Let's be honest here, they all spoiled that land. I don't want them doing the same in Ireland. Not unless McG comes clean, mans up and forgoes that oath he took, back in the day.

maccored

old hippy wrote: »

Let's be honest here, they all spoiled that land. I don't want them doing the same in Ireland. Not unless McG comes clean, mans up and forgoes that oath he took, back in the day.

lets be even more honest here and not land the blame at the foot of one group of people.

How could the same thing happen down here unless the same kind of inequality and bull**** was going on? You're comparing apples with fish. Why not just blame them damn nordies, each and every one of them and be done with it?