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
Comments
-
If the IRA had only gone after military targets, if they hadn't gone into criminality, effectively becoming an Irish gang and if they had respected people's rights to live their lives by not issuing punishment beatings for anyone, especially civilians, who engaged with Unionists socially or did anything the IRA didn't agree with, then maybe, just maybe McGuinness could be justified in acknowledging his IRA membership and the work he did while part of that organisation.
But the IRA didn't only go after military targets and they did engage in significant criminal activity outside the realms of being an armed resistance and they did issue punishment beatings and assassinations of people who didn't fall into line.
Yes, McGuinness and Adams did work to bring the hardliners to the table and they did work to disarm the IRA and create peace in the North but that doesn't change what the IRA did and were and until he acknowledges that fully he may have the constitutional right to run for the presidency but he doesn't have the moral right.
I do think however that Sinn Fein has a place in Irish politics going forward but if it is to become a leading party in the future, it will happen with people who are a generation removed from the IRA generation. I actually think that the best thing Adams and McGuinness could do for Sinn Fein would be to step aside and let people who don't have the associations they have take control. There is a trend among young people towards Sinn Fein but it will be the new generation of Sinn Fein, the likes of Doherty and McDonald who will bring the party forward without the weight of the past.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »That's not how I read it.
If the IRA hadn't targeted innocent civilians then the "troubles" would have been completely different, and the peace process wouldn't have been between two terrorist sides.
Some intervention would have been required, but there would have been no bombs and arms dumps and international decommissions boards or anything of the sort.
And - strangely enough - they might have been respected for standing up for human rights and fighting their oppressors, instead of being reviled for murdering innocent civilians; there certainly wouldn't have been any objection from me regarding McGuinness running for election if he had chosen that route.
Liam I am not going into this with you again,
The facts are that it was the unionist/loyalist paramilitaries with British government help who started the bombings and shootings,they were the first to draw blood,Republicans reacted with violence and unfortunately innocent people got killed from all sides and imo you shift all the blame onto republicans as if they alone could have stopped it,I have no doubt without the GFA we would have had bombs back in Dublin and elsewhere.and i know this is of topic but i heard Gay Mitchel this morning talking about and reading from the 1916 proclamation and yet them people they had no public support and they were treated as terrorist etc etc Have we not learned anything from our past/history ?0 -
The facts are that it was the unionist/loyalist paramilitaries with British government help who started the bombings and shootingsNo-one suggested otherwise,they were the first to draw blood,Republicans reacted with violence and unfortunately innocent people got killed
That is FAR too passive a phrasing......innocent people were deliberately murdered. Reacting with violence AGAINST THE PERPETRATORS is something I would absolutely condone and support; the IRA went well beyond that and in doing so lost any hope of me being an apologist for them.
If someone thumps you senseless in a nightclub, do you go home and beat your wife ? Of course you don't. Do you smash up your neighbour's car ? Only if you're an idiotic drunken toerag. Do you randomly maim and murder people on the way home ? Hopefully not, but don't expect my support.
If you beat them senseless back, I'll support - and possibly help - you.
That is where the IRA went wrong, murdering people and then claiming that it was for me or my country. F**K OFF ye lying toerags.
NOT. IN. MY. NAME.0 -
Liam I am not going into this with you again,
The facts are that it was the unionist/loyalist paramilitaries with British government help who started the bombings and shootings,they were the first to draw blood,Republicans reacted with violence and unfortunately innocent people got killed from all sides and imo you shift all the blame onto republicans as if they alone could have stopped it,I have no doubt without the GFA we would have had bombs back in Dublin and elsewhere.and i know this is of topic but i heard Gay Mitchel this morning talking about and reading from the 1916 proclamation and yet them people they had no public support and they were treated as terrorist etc etc Have we not learned anything from our past/history ?
That's true. During the week of the rising the people in Dublin for instance were absolutely against what was happening. Many of them had family members fighting in the Great War and the last thing they wanted was to have violence on their own shores. It wasn't until the leaders were executed that public opinion began to change.
It's also true that in the War of Independence, the IRA under Collins carried out multiple assassinations, the kind of thing that would be abhorred if it happened today.
The big difference between what happened with the Rising and War of Independence and what happened with the IRA during the troubles though was that the Provisional IRA didn't limit themselves to military and strategic targets. The cause was used as an excuse to kill whoever they wanted and to commit acts of criminality.0 -
That's true. During the week of the rising the people in Dublin for instance were absolutely against what was happening. Many of them had family members fighting in the Great War and the last thing they wanted was to have violence on their own shores. It wasn't until the leaders were executed that public opinion began to change.
It's also true that in the War of Independence, the IRA under Collins carried out multiple assassinations, the kind of thing that would be abhorred if it happened today.
The big difference between what happened with the Rising and War of Independence and what happened with the IRA during the troubles though was that the Provisional IRA didn't limit themselves to military and strategic targets. The cause was used as an excuse to kill whoever they wanted and to commit acts of criminality.
There is no difference between the men & women of then to the provisional or official Ira,People today are nitpicking about that time to suit there own particular agendas,Just check out what happened in cork and else where to the protasadent communities,.. re criminality Money has always been a target right from the 30,s & 40,s on,They need it to aquire arms etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »That is FAR too passive a phrasing......innocent people were deliberately murdered. Reacting with violence AGAINST THE PERPETRATORS is something I would absolutely condone and support; the IRA went well beyond that and in doing so lost any hope of me being an apologist for them.
If someone thumps you senseless in a nightclub, do you go home and beat your wife ? Of course you don't. Do you smash up your neighbour's car ? Only if you're an idiotic drunken toerag. Do you randomly maim and murder people on the way home ? Hopefully not, but don't expect my support.
If you beat them senseless back, I'll support - and possibly help - you.
That is where the IRA went wrong, murdering people and then claiming that it was for me or my country. F**K OFF ye lying toerags.
NOT. IN. MY. NAME.
You make it so fcuking black & white, if only this and only that,What do you think people woke up one morning and said o i know we will go out and kill people its a fcuking game were playing... Have you ever lived up there ? I have and still have family there and still go up quite regular,I have also had a family member killed by British government/loyalists in Dublin,I know all about the violence and what it does to people, where were you then when the catholic population needed the help in 60,s, you were no where to be seen,you did nothing to help us,nothing and then you all sit back in your cushy chairs and judge and then the likes of you come along and call us lying toe rags,fcuk of yourself.0 -
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »True. I wasn't born until 10 years later.
See you edited your first reply,Was going to give you a very smart reply back, Anyway dont be getting so smart it doesent suit YOU.0 -
Ah God someone reported my above post well there certainly no kevin barry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Barry0 -
Advertisement
-
I'll make this really clear for everyone
either the handbags, hysterics, childishness and other such nonsense stops, or people are going to start getting banned from the forum. This is getting really tiresome tbh
Cheers
DrG0 -
Martin McGuinness was one of the bogeymen, one of the so-called men of violence. There was a time when there could be no talks with the men of violence. They were killers addicted to killing. Without their guns they were nothing and they knew it, for Sinn Féin was, as the former Conservative secretary of state Patrick Mayhew once taunted them, "a mere 10% party". It would be an affront to democracy itself were they to be invited to the political table. In the pre-ceasefire mental arrangement, McGuinness had a special standing: he was raptor-in-chief in an organisation of blooded hawks. Even if Gerry Adams might like to talk, McGuinness would not.
In times of war it's understandable, though rarely useful, to attribute to your enemy all the qualities of the beast. But we have come a long way since then. The IRA campaign is over. Sinn Féin is firmly established in Northern Ireland as the second largest party, behind Peter Robinson's DUP. In the Irish Republic, the latest Irish Times-Ipsos MRBI poll now also puts Sinn Féin second. McGuinness has been elected three times to Westminster and five times as an assembly member. In 2007 he was nominated deputy first minister in the Northern Ireland assembly. He is now running for president of Ireland.
McGuinness's candidacy is proving popular, especially among Ireland's poor, and has his rivals' supporters reaching for apocalyptic rhetoric. The Fine Gael environment minister, Phil Hogan, said recently that putting McGuinness in charge of the state "would leave us looking like a banana republic". Ireland, he continued ominously, would be "denuded of serious levels of corporate investment within 24 months". His panicky warning coincided with the return of McGuinness and Robinson from the US with further promises of investment for the North. Far from having investors running for cover, McGuinness is well regarded in New York and Washington.
What galls McGuinness's detractors is that Sinn Féin has been so staggeringly successful. Forty years ago it barely existed in anything other than name. Thirty years ago, it was confined to republican heartlands in Belfast and Derry. Twenty years ago its leaders were still subject to censorship in Ireland and Britain, and its members and elected councillors were ostracised and – with suspected state collusion – on occasion assassinated. Now its candidate for president has a real chance of winning.
As president, McGuinness knows he would be the representative of all the republic's interests, even those to which he may be adverse. But he long ago absorbed the need for political inclusiveness. Even at the height of the Troubles he said he would talk to anyone at any time without preconditions in order to find a way to bring the conflict to a close. When negotiators eventually agreed to meet, they found him affable, straight-talking and easy to get along with. They were impressed. Against all expectation, they even liked him.
With arch republican foe Ian Paisley, McGuinness formed a close and apparently warm working relationship. When Paisley was forced out, many believed that his successor, Robinson, would prefer to sink the whole power-sharing arrangement rather than continue with a man he had so often denounced. It did not turn out that way, and while there are fewer signs of mutual personal regard in the present partnership, it is at least working effectively.
Principled and effective, McGuinness's popularity with his supporters comes from a mix of integrity, straight dealing, and a refusal to be compromised by the trappings of success. Born into a large, poor Derry family, he has avoided airs and graces. Nor does he share the Cherie Blair fear of descending again into poverty that she has tried to use as a licence for her and her husband to milk it while they can. Like all Sinn Féin's elected representatives, McGuinness gives his public salary to the party and takes an average wage in return. His nose remains firmly out of the trough. His appeal is to those who never experienced the economic benefits of the Celtic Tiger but who are now paying for its collapse: the people, as he puts it, who were not invited to the party. Traditionally ignored by the main parties, they now look to one of their own.
Unable to score points against his record in office or to find evidence of personal lapses, his opponents have fallen back on his membership of the IRA. Before the Saville inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings, McGuinness admitted that he was the Provisional IRA's second-in-command in Derry on that fateful day, and said he left the IRA in 1974. No one believes he left in 1974. Indeed, his stature as an IRA leader was crucial in selling the peace deal to the organisation. His supporters treat his denials philosophically and even some of his critics understand the legal need to finesse the dates of his IRA membership, which is still a prosecutable offence. Does this mean he should not be president?
The violence in Ireland was appalling. McGuinness has already said that much of it was unjustifiable. But it was not the work of killers addicted to killing. What happened in McGuinness's home town of Derry in the summer of 1969 was an Irish spring, a spontaneous rebellion against a regime that discriminated and excluded from power a majority of its own citizens. Many reached for the gun in those strange, paranoid, idealistic and angry days. Martin McGuinness was one of them. But he put the gun down and he persuaded the British government to address the issues that sparked the conflict. The North is a better place because of him. The republic can be too.
Bold is mine says it all IMO.0 -
I honestly would vote for Dana over the skangers champion.0
-
-
Martin McGuinness was one of the bogeymen, one of the so-called men of violence. There was a time when there could be no talks with the men of violence. They were killers addicted to killing. Without their guns they were nothing and they knew it, for Sinn Féin was, as the former Conservative secretary of state Patrick Mayhew once taunted them, "a mere 10% party". It would be an affront to democracy itself were they to be invited to the political table. In the pre-ceasefire mental arrangement, McGuinness had a special standing: he was raptor-in-chief in an organisation of blooded hawks. Even if Gerry Adams might like to talk, McGuinness would not.
In times of war it's understandable, though rarely useful, to attribute to your enemy all the qualities of the beast. But we have come a long way since then. The IRA campaign is over. Sinn Féin is firmly established in Northern Ireland as the second largest party, behind Peter Robinson's DUP. In the Irish Republic, the latest Irish Times-Ipsos MRBI poll now also puts Sinn Féin second. McGuinness has been elected three times to Westminster and five times as an assembly member. In 2007 he was nominated deputy first minister in the Northern Ireland assembly. He is now running for president of Ireland.
McGuinness's candidacy is proving popular, especially among Ireland's poor, and has his rivals' supporters reaching for apocalyptic rhetoric. The Fine Gael environment minister, Phil Hogan, said recently that putting McGuinness in charge of the state "would leave us looking like a banana republic". Ireland, he continued ominously, would be "denuded of serious levels of corporate investment within 24 months". His panicky warning coincided with the return of McGuinness and Robinson from the US with further promises of investment for the North. Far from having investors running for cover, McGuinness is well regarded in New York and Washington.
What galls McGuinness's detractors is that Sinn Féin has been so staggeringly successful. Forty years ago it barely existed in anything other than name. Thirty years ago, it was confined to republican heartlands in Belfast and Derry. Twenty years ago its leaders were still subject to censorship in Ireland and Britain, and its members and elected councillors were ostracised and – with suspected state collusion – on occasion assassinated. Now its candidate for president has a real chance of winning.
As president, McGuinness knows he would be the representative of all the republic's interests, even those to which he may be adverse. But he long ago absorbed the need for political inclusiveness. Even at the height of the Troubles he said he would talk to anyone at any time without preconditions in order to find a way to bring the conflict to a close. When negotiators eventually agreed to meet, they found him affable, straight-talking and easy to get along with. They were impressed. Against all expectation, they even liked him.
With arch republican foe Ian Paisley, McGuinness formed a close and apparently warm working relationship. When Paisley was forced out, many believed that his successor, Robinson, would prefer to sink the whole power-sharing arrangement rather than continue with a man he had so often denounced. It did not turn out that way, and while there are fewer signs of mutual personal regard in the present partnership, it is at least working effectively.
Principled and effective, McGuinness's popularity with his supporters comes from a mix of integrity, straight dealing, and a refusal to be compromised by the trappings of success. Born into a large, poor Derry family, he has avoided airs and graces. Nor does he share the Cherie Blair fear of descending again into poverty that she has tried to use as a licence for her and her husband to milk it while they can. Like all Sinn Féin's elected representatives, McGuinness gives his public salary to the party and takes an average wage in return. His nose remains firmly out of the trough. His appeal is to those who never experienced the economic benefits of the Celtic Tiger but who are now paying for its collapse: the people, as he puts it, who were not invited to the party. Traditionally ignored by the main parties, they now look to one of their own.
Unable to score points against his record in office or to find evidence of personal lapses, his opponents have fallen back on his membership of the IRA. Before the Saville inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings, McGuinness admitted that he was the Provisional IRA's second-in-command in Derry on that fateful day, and said he left the IRA in 1974. No one believes he left in 1974. Indeed, his stature as an IRA leader was crucial in selling the peace deal to the organisation. His supporters treat his denials philosophically and even some of his critics understand the legal need to finesse the dates of his IRA membership, which is still a prosecutable offence. Does this mean he should not be president?
The violence in Ireland was appalling. McGuinness has already said that much of it was unjustifiable. But it was not the work of killers addicted to killing. What happened in McGuinness's home town of Derry in the summer of 1969 was an Irish spring, a spontaneous rebellion against a regime that discriminated and excluded from power a majority of its own citizens. Many reached for the gun in those strange, paranoid, idealistic and angry days. Martin McGuinness was one of them. But he put the gun down and he persuaded the British government to address the issues that sparked the conflict. The North is a better place because of him. The republic can be too.
Bold is mine says it all IMO.
maybe when he stops lying,tells paddy kellys son who the murders are so Kelly family can get justice,if he doesn't ,then we know he hasn't changed ,just moved the goal posts,marty mc guinness is too toxic a candidate to be president of any country,he has alot of questions to answer like others in IRA /SEIN FEIN party,there is still family members who where taken from there homes by ira/sein fein and known to be killed and there body's never found. There is too many un-answered with Mc Guinness and party to these and other issues,People in state of Ireland can't take a chance with mc guinness too attract jobs and other services too Ireland.you can say the ira/sf propaganda any way you like,WON'T change anything now in Irelandin few decades ,maybe but not now0 -
KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »maybe when he stops lying,tells paddy kellys son who the murders are so Kelly family can get justice,if he doesn't ,then we know he hasn't changed ,just moved the goal posts,marty mc guinness is too toxic a candidate to be president of any country,he has alot of questions to answer like others in IRA /SEIN FEIN party,there is still family members who where taken from there homes by ira/sein fein and known to be killed and there body's never found. There is too many un-answered with Mc Guinness and party to these and other issues,People in state of Ireland can't take a chance with mc guinness too attract jobs and other services too Ireland.you can say the ira/sf propaganda any way you like,WON'T change anything now in Irelandin few decades ,maybe but not now
Call me a grammar/spelling Nazi or whatever, but seriously.......that grammar, punctuation and spelling........are you semi-illiterate?What is with the green text...is it because are you twelve years old and like the pretty green letters?:pac:0 -
Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »I honestly would vote for Dana over the skangers champion.
I wouldn't vote for him in a million years myself. He came extremely close to losing his cool last night with Miriam over his terrorist past. I think he thought the subject would go away after a week or so of his campaign but it keeps coming back. I can see him losing the plot before the end of this election.
As I said before, telling the truth could be good for him in terms of votes unless he played a significant role in some of the more appalling events. The situation is pretty straightforward either (a) he was an active member of the IRA and should tell the people of this country about it or (b) his terrorist come good persona is false.
Northern Ireland is a different country and the people are very different from the people in this country. People and the media up there might be happy to turn a blind eye to his past, the majority think differently in this country.0 -
RepublicanEagle wrote: »Call me a grammar/spelling Nazi or whatever, but seriously.......that grammar, punctuation and spelling........are you semi-illiterate?What is with the green text...is it because are you twelve years old and like the pretty green letters?:pac:
Can't say I'm surprised about this post when sein fein support don't like what other posters are saying.Nothing new .0 -
KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »Can't say I'm surprised about this post when sein fein support don't like what other posters are saying.Nothing new .
Less of the Green type please KK, it is hard to read for some and adds nothing to the post
Cheers
DrG0 -
Northern Ireland is a different country and the people are very different from the people in this country. People and the media up there might be happy to turn a blind eye to his past, the majority think differently in this country
Oh yeah so very different its like chalk and cheese:rolleyes:. People up there as you put it don't turn a blind eye, but rather accept wrong took place on all sides and would rather look in front of them than behind.
I'm not asking you to forget what happened, but to be able to move forward is a great asset that MMG has.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
cardwizzard wrote: »Northern Ireland is a different country and the people are very different from the people in this country. People and the media up there might be happy to turn a blind eye to his past, the majority think differently in this country
Oh yeah so very different its like chalk and cheese:rolleyes:. People up there as you put it don't turn a blind eye, but rather accept wrong took place on all sides and would rather look in front of them than behind.
I'm not asking you to forget what happened, but to be able to move forward is a great asset that MMG has.
When SEIN FEIN and Marty Mc guinness tell people where there family's body's are so they can have peace.
When Marty and sein fein answer questions like who are the murders of paddy Kelly, Irish defense forces are.
When Marty tells the truth .
When relies that say that state of Ireland is 26 counties ONLY,and accepts it,then we know he has moved on.
Till then,,NO he won't be accepted as a trustworthy candidate that doesn't have a agenda.0 -
-
KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »When SEIN FEIN and Marty Mc guinness tell people where there family's body's are so they can have peace.
When Marty and sein fein answer questions like who are the murders of paddy Kelly, Irish defense forces are.
When Marty tells the truth .
When relies that say that state of Ireland is 26 counties ONLY,and accepts it,then we know he has moved on.
Till then,,NO he won't be accepted as a trustworthy candidate that doesn't have a agenda.
Good God..that must have been the ONLY one sided conflict in history0 -
RepublicanEagle wrote: »Country?
Northern Ireland is different country to state of Ireland,Till such time as all people of all divides decide they don't want to be part of UK anymore .Not going to happen right now but maybe in future if majority of people decide.0 -
If we had too many Gardai, and it was still illegal to fire them, President McGuinness would know how to thin out their numbers.0
-
KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »Northern Ireland is different country to state of Ireland,Till such time as all people of all divides decide they don't want to be part of UK anymore .Not going to happen right now but maybe in future if majority of people decide.
Northern Ireland does not meet the requirements of what defines a country, it is merely a small region/province/statelet that is subjected to the rule of the UK.0 -
RepublicanEagle wrote: »Northern Ireland does not meet the requirements of what defines a country, it is merely a small region/province/statelet that is subjected to the rule of the UK.
So hence northern Ireland is part of UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland0 -
KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »So hence northern Ireland is part of UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland
Hence it is not a "country".0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement