I don't understand why people are supporting Martin McGuinness

fishy fishy

dublin_1990 wrote: »

He has admitted his involvement in the IRA. So therefore he has admitted to killing innocent civilians; Men, Women and CHILDREN. I don't care if he says he joined because of the troubles in Derry and it was the fight against the British forces it does not excuse the fact that he was part of an organisation that took the lives away of perfectly innocent people and destroyed the lives of many more. I really don't understand how people can ignore all this and say he wants to do good for Ireland now. A little too late if you ask me. We cannot ignore what he did just because it was long ago. If a convicted murderer or rapist claimed to have changed their ways I would not be voting for them.
The bottom line is he was part of an organisation that killed innocent civilians and this was even before 1974 which is when he claimed to have left.

this has been done to death over the past few weeks.

fishy fishy

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

The one thing I dont understand though is why would Mcguinness go through this sort of thing if he wasnt becoming president.

He has gained very little by not winning.

I would disagree - they have gained hugely - they're playing the long game. they'll be running the country yet. Thats what has FF and their supporters shaking in their shoes - they little nestegg will be well and truly cracked.

fishy fishy

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

What do you mean hypocrite? I'm not denying that the British army have been in the wrong. I'm just as critical of the BA, or even more, than I am of McGuinness. It doesn't take away from the fact that what McGuinness did was criminal.

can you elaborate on what he did?

Downlinz

Would have given him a preference before his assault on Gallagher via his direct line to convicted criminals. Now he gets nothing.

Jaap

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

What did he do personally do?

Did he kill people and if so, why after all these years and all his enemies hasnt he been put away?

Maybe because there was no proof?

I don't think we will ever find out the real truth about what Martin McGuinness has been involved with.
You can certainly not trust any denials he has made. I wouldn't trust a thing that came out of the man's mouth.
As for not being put away...he was jailed in the Republic twice.
He is too important to the British Government to pursue these days even if their HET team uncovered any findings linking him to murders. It is the price the innocent people of NI with no links to terrorists have to pay....accept terrorists and supporters of sectarian murders walking the streets...and even running government.

fishy fishy

Downlinz wrote: »

Would have given him a preference before his assault on Gallagher via his direct line to convicted criminals. Now he gets nothing.

who's connection - Fianna Fails or Gallaghers- fancy going to a convicted criminal and asking him for money - just shows how slimy FF are

Jaap

fishy fishy wrote: »

can you elaborate on what he did?

Have you not been reading the stories in the papers?
And that is probably the tip of the iceberg unfortunately!

fishy fishy

maccored wrote: »

How? Didnt Collins order manys a death?

nah, they just played with conkers, them lot. :D

fishy fishy

Jaap wrote: »

Have you not been reading the stories in the papers?
And that is probably the tip of the iceberg unfortunately!

ahh the papers - a bit like the bible them papers - versions of stories from people what weren't even around at the time, who concoct their own headlines LOL .

but then again if people can believe water can be turned into wine in front of their eyes.... ;)

speaking of the tip of the iceberg - Gallager is going down like the titanic after the iceberg hit hopefully.

KELTICKNIGHTT

fishy fishy wrote: »

ahh the papers - a bit like the bible them papers - versions of stories from people what weren't even around at the time, who concoct their own headlines LOL .

but then again if people can believe water can be turned into wine in front of their eyes.... ;)

speaking of the tip of the iceberg - Gallager is going down like the titanic after the iceberg hit hopefully.

mmg will go faster as terrorist and biggest Liar of all time

KELTICKNIGHTT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjubwpREiU0

RandomName2

maccored wrote: »

How? Didnt Collins order manys a death?

Collins' position had a popular mandate (after 1918, before which he could arguably be considered a traitor to democratic, parliamentary Irish nationalism), he didn't plant bombs and he recognised the Irish state when it was formed.

RandomName2

jsd1004 wrote: »

Was the murder of Gadaffi a murder? If so are Cameron et al murderers. What about the innocent civilians who died. Were they murdered?

The murder of Gadaffi was of course a murder. I don't think I saw Cameron pulling the trigger in the video. Think it was a member of the NTC (or supporter of). Which would make him a murderer.

RandomName2

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

mmg will go faster as terrorist and biggest Liar of all time

the fastest terrorist of all time!

Well he did canvass in three counties yesterday!

maccored

RandomName2 wrote: »

Collins' position had a popular mandate (after 1918, before which he could arguably be considered a traitor to democratic, parliamentary Irish nationalism), he didn't plant bombs and he recognised the Irish state when it was formed.

the 1916 rebels had no mandate.

answer the question, didnt collins kill, and order the deaths of more than a few people? (the answer is Yes, but maybe your rose tinted spectacles wont let you see that)

caseyann

Typical a person comes on and says i dont understand why people support Mc Guinness.And rather get an answer the anti Mc Guinness crowd have to come in and wreck the thread with the usual old ****.:rolleyes:
Get a life

I support Mc Guinness because,he is sharp and smart and well spoken articulate and for the people of Ireland,He represents Irish all over Ireland and will protect and stand up for Irish rights and the country and bring in investments.He also has good relations with many top people all over the world.He is highly respected.He brings great leadership and that is a quality none of the others have or even emit.He has strong presence and he is able to let the past go and build on it and shake hands.
Also i like him met him loads of times he is a funny man and very easy to sit in a room with and have a chat with.:)
I personally feel he is the man who should bring Ireland into 2012 and the future.

Godge

caseyann wrote: »

Typical a person comes on and says i dont understand why people support Mc Guinness.And rather get an answer the anti Mc Guinness crowd have to come in and wreck the thread with the usual old ****.:rolleyes:
Get a life

I support Mc Guinness because,he is sharp and smart and well spoken articulate and for the people of Ireland,He represents Irish all over Ireland and will protect and stand up for Irish rights and the country and bring in investments.He also has good relations with many top people all over the world.He is highly respected.He brings great leadership and that is a quality none of the others have or even emit.He has strong presence and he is able to let the past go and build on it and shake hands.
Also i like him met him loads of times he is a funny man and very easy to sit in a room with and have a chat with.:)
I personally feel he is the man who should bring Ireland into 2012 and the future.

There are some things in the past that you might want to forgive and forget - say a person was a low-level member of a political party and was involved in some fund-raising and collected a cheque (Gallagher), you might forgive that. Or someone was a member of that party as a student and made some silly decisions as a Minister for another party but claimed to be anti-establishment (Higgins), you could just forget that. I could live with both of those.

But someone who was a high-ranking member of a terrorist organisation and continues to use mealy-mouthed words to avoid labelling the murder of Jean McConville? Can that be forgiven and forgotten? A bit harder, I am afraid and not for me.

caseyann

Godge wrote: »

There are some things in the past that you might want to forgive and forget - say a person was a low-level member of a political party and was involved in some fund-raising and collected a cheque (Gallagher), you might forgive that. Or someone was a member of that party as a student and made some silly decisions as a Minister for another party but claimed to be anti-establishment (Higgins), you could just forget that. I could live with both of those.

But someone who was a high-ranking member of a terrorist organisation and continues to use mealy-mouthed words to avoid labelling the murder of Jean McConville? Can that be forgiven and forgotten? A bit harder, I am afraid and not for me.

You are just saying what media says and propaganda fear mongering political terrorists of this country say.
But you can forgive queen and her soldiers and let her into our country while Ireland is still separated and allow unionists to govern over Irish in the north ?Please dont be a hypocrite.
Thats it you stay in the past and i am in present.
Have you seen or heard anyone condemn the deaths when they were Irish by loyalists?

anymore

caseyann wrote: »

Typical a person comes on and says i dont understand why people support Mc Guinness.And rather get an answer the anti Mc Guinness crowd have to come in and wreck the thread with the usual old ****.:rolleyes:
Get a life

I support Mc Guinness because,he is sharp and smart and well spoken articulate and for the people of Ireland,He represents Irish all over Ireland and will protect and stand up for Irish rights and the country and bring in investments.He also has good relations with many top people all over the world.He is highly respected.He brings great leadership and that is a quality none of the others have or even emit.He has strong presence and he is able to let the past go and build on it and shake hands.
Also i like him met him loads of times he is a funny man and very easy to sit in a room with and have a chat with.:)
I personally feel he is the man who should bring Ireland into 2012 and the future.

Why caseyanne, is it possible you find him sexy ???;);)

caseyann

anymore wrote: »

Why caseyanne, is it possible you find him sexy ???;);)

Where in the hell did you read that into it.:eek::D

maccored

Godge wrote: »

say a person was a low-level member of a political party and was involved in some fund-raising and collected a cheque (Gallagher), you might forgive that.

You mean someone who claims they are a 'grass roots' member with no working relationship further up the ladder, yet ends up he organised photo sessions for a fee with the high and apparently mighty? i wouldnt forgive that, as that person would be a bare faced liar.

anymore

caseyann wrote: »

Where in the hell did you read that into it.:eek::D

:DAlso i like him met him loads of times he is a funny man and very easy to sit in a room with and have a chat with.
I personally feel he is the man who should bring Ireland into 2012 and the future.

RandomName2

maccored wrote: »

the 1916 rebels had no mandate.

answer the question, didnt collins kill, and order the deaths of more than a few people? (the answer is Yes, but maybe your rose tinted spectacles wont let you see that)

I just acknowledged that he did. You essentially asked whether there were any differences, and there were. The 1916 rebels meanwhile should never -ever- have done what they did. Some did it out of desperation, some due to heroic idealism, others idiotic opportunism. They were all wrong. It took until The Aglo-Irish Treaty that most natonalists came to their senses and saw that the parliamentary approach was the correct one. Others insisted on perpetuating a war against the Irish loyal to the Irish state. Ultimately DeV chose to enter the Dail. So DeV was a hypocrite along with his supporting the creation of an ultra-right wing that brought Ireland back to the Dark Ages. But neither Collins nor DeV were terrorists.

caseyann

anymore wrote: »

:DAlso i like him met him loads of times he is a funny man and very easy to sit in a room with and have a chat with.
I personally feel he is the man who should bring Ireland into 2012 and the future.

You read to much into it lol

RandomName2

caseyann wrote: »

he is able to let the past go

Clearly this is untrue.

caseyann wrote: »

and build on it and shake hands.

That much I will agree with you on.

Happyman42

Downlinz wrote: »

Would have given him a preference before his assault on Gallagher via his direct line to convicted criminals. Now he gets nothing.

In fairness now, FF and Gallagher had a nice wee lucrative line to the convicted criminal themselves. The hypocrites SF always said they were?

Chuck Stone

If you really want to understand (LOL) then why don't you go up to Derry and spend a few evenings in the pubs of the bogside and listen to the anecdotes of people around the same age as MMcG about the times leading up to and including bloody Sunday.

You're probably only being exposed to the far-removed proselytising of Unionist/British apologists in the Southern establishment meeja.

Ozymandius2011

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If you really want to understand (LOL) then why don't you go up to Derry and spend a few evenings in the pubs of the bogside and listen to the anecdotes of people around the same age as MMcG about the times leading up to and including bloody Sunday.

What did Jerry McCabe have to do with Bloody Sunday? What did Don Tidey have to do with it? That's just an excuse.

Happytime42 wrote:

In fairness now, FF and Gallagher had a nice wee lucrative line to the convicted criminal themselves. The hypocrites SF always said they were?

He insists he didn't know at the time of Morgan's past.

Chuck Stone

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

What did Jerry McCabe have to do with Bloody Sunday? What did Don Tidey have to do with it? That's just an excuse.He insists he didn't know at the time of Morgan's past.

The point of my post.

You missed it.

maccored

RandomName2 wrote: »

I just acknowledged that he did. You essentially asked whether there were any differences, and there were. The 1916 rebels meanwhile should never -ever- have done what they did. Some did it out of desperation, some due to heroic idealism, others idiotic opportunism. They were all wrong. It took until The Aglo-Irish Treaty that most natonalists came to their senses and saw that the parliamentary approach was the correct one. Others insisted on perpetuating a war against the Irish loyal to the Irish state. Ultimately DeV chose to enter the Dail. So DeV was a hypocrite along with his supporting the creation of an ultra-right wing that brought Ireland back to the Dark Ages. But neither Collins nor DeV were terrorists.

Collins murdered people - therefore he was a terrorist ... going by the general rule of thumb one hears of around here. Basically what you outlined is exactly what happened in the north .... moving into politics et al. I wish people would get rid of this childish 'oh but the "old IRA" didnt hurt anyone' hogwash.

maccored

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

What did Jerry McCabe have to do with Bloody Sunday? What did Don Tidey have to do with it? That's just an excuse.

What have either got to do with mmg?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

He insists he didn't know at the time of Morgan's past.

Are you telling me he didnt know of morgans past, yet he went to Armagh - across the border - to collect the cheque from him. Gallagher is from Louth, and you;re telling me he didnt know anything about Morgan? Correction - he's saying he "didn't know at the time of Morgan's past" and you actually believe him? Thats incredible.

hangon

RandomName2 wrote: »

and there were. The 1916 rebels meanwhile should never -ever- have done what they did. Some did it out of desperation, some due to heroic idealism, others idiotic opportunism. They were all wrong. It took until The Aglo-Irish Treaty that most natonalists came to their senses and saw that the parliamentary approach was the correct one. Others insisted on perpetuating a war against the Irish loyal to the Irish state. Ultimately DeV chose to enter the Dail. So DeV was a hypocrite along with his supporting the creation of an ultra-right wing that brought Ireland back to the Dark Ages. But neither Collins nor DeV were terrorists.

Dev and Collins took part in the rising,what is often overlooked is that they had almost no public support until the executions took place,that is what riled the people.
it was not a very clever move by the UK's force's.
without the executions 1916 might only have gone down as an 'incident' in history,not a source of inspiration for further rebellion.

Collins never intended to stop at the Treaty but saw it as a stepping stone to getting the 32.
Dev was more interested in power,when he sent Collins to do his dirty work and judged that the Treaty was not going down well on the Island he turned on Collins.
it should have been Dev sitting down with Llyod George,he instead let Collins identity be revealed then hung him out to dry.

Llyod gave a very time limited offer of the 26 to Collins,26 or nothing except a major clampdown on Republicans.

MMG and Gerry Adams learned this lesson well and did not divide like Dev and Collins,that is why i still suggest that MMG and G Adams will be judged very well by history.

Happyman42

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

He insists he didn't know at the time of Morgan's past.

Nonsense, everyone who had anything to do with business in the border area knew of Hugh Morgan and Morgan Fuels.

Plus he went from knowing nothing about him to knowing a lot about him in an Ad break. :rolleyes:

hangon

Happyman42 wrote: »

Plus he went from knowing nothing about him to knowing a lot about him in an Ad break. :rolleyes:

Sure most of us knew nothing about Dana's family until after an Ad break either.
jeepers this campaign was dirtier than any General election!:)

I Heart Internet

caseyann wrote: »

.............He is highly respected.................

He's highly tolerated you mean?

Happyman42

hangon wrote: »

Sure most of us knew nothing about Dana's family until after an Ad break either.
jeepers this campaign was dirtier than any General election!:)

Yes, but Dana knew.........I think.:D

caseyann

I Heart Internet wrote: »

He's highly tolerated you mean?

You wish thats what i meant.

dogpile

caseyann wrote: »

I support Mc Guinness because,he is sharp and smart and well spoken articulate and for the people of Ireland,He represents Irish all over Ireland and will protect and stand up for Irish rights and the country and bring in investments.He also has good relations with many top people all over the world.He is highly respected.He brings great leadership and that is a quality none of the others have or even emit.He has strong presence and he is able to let the past go and build on it and shake hands.
Also i like him met him loads of times he is a funny man and very easy to sit in a room with and have a chat with.:)
I personally feel he is the man who should bring Ireland into 2012 and the future.

All of this...if I was to vote (and I'm not, never have voted in any election/ referendum never will) I would vote McGuinness ....he's not a "career politician" there is a purpose and a reason to him

hangon

dogpile wrote: »

if I was to vote (and I'm not, never have voted in any election/ referendum never will)

Moved to the Robert Mugabe forum :pac::pac:

I Heart Internet

caseyann wrote: »

You wish thats what i meant.

This reminds me of tin-pot dictators in Central Asia and the Causacus. Western leaders send their ministers to visit them and have them visit their capitals to keep them vaguely on the track towards democracy (and to get their oil and gas companies on the ground). Said tin-pot dictator's media then braodcasts his meetings with western big-wigs to sure up their credibility. "See how much the UK and US respect me"

McGuinness is tolerated because of his position (in the past of course!) within the IRA and the fact that he can bring plenty of people along with him, who might otherwise turn to violence. Not because he's a respected world leader.

Godge

caseyann wrote: »

You are just saying what media says and propaganda fear mongering political terrorists of this country say.
But you can forgive queen and her soldiers and let her into our country while Ireland is still separated and allow unionists to govern over Irish in the north ?Please dont be a hypocrite.
Thats it you stay in the past and i am in present.
Have you seen or heard anyone condemn the deaths when they were Irish by loyalists?

Wow, you think I live in the past?

In the present, I am confronted with a man who has admitted to being a member of a terrorist organisation and refuses to condemn as murder the killings by that terrorist organisation. Furthermore, there is more than a whiff of suspicion that he was involved or had knowledge of some of those murders (I have no problem calling them murders). By today's standards, that is unacceptable to me.

In the past, people accepted the likes of De Valera who was guilty of similar things (though a bit like Mcguinness' claims of leaving the IRA in 1974, he spent a lot of the worst time oft he excesses in the US fund-raising and unlike today, you could not fly home in 1920s). That would not be acceptable to me by today's standards.

So I am not living in the past. A terrorist is unacceptable as President of Ireland by today's standards even if such a person was acceptable in the past. When the MMcG apologists stop the De Valera comparisons, they can start accusing others of living in the past.

Where To

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If you really want to understand (LOL) then why don't you go up to Derry and spend a few evenings in the pubs of the bogside and listen to the anecdotes of people around the same age as MMcG about the times leading up to and including bloody Sunday.

You're probably only being exposed to the far-removed proselytising of Unionist/British apologists in the Southern establishment meeja.

And if you get fed up with listening to barstool republicans you could spend an evening or two with many of the good people of creggan and the bogside and rosemount and everywhere else who had no time for McG and his private army.

Sir Oxman

Downlinz wrote: »

Would have given him a preference before his assault on Gallagher via his direct line to convicted criminals. Now he gets nothing.

that'd be the criminal Gallagher and FF had no problem grabbing 5k from while Cowen lifted his skirts for a photo?:rolleyes:

Godge

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This reminds me of tin-pot dictators in Central Asia and the Causacus. Western leaders send their ministers to visit them and have them visit their capitals to keep them vaguely on the track towards democracy (and to get their oil and gas companies on the ground). Said tin-pot dictator's media then braodcasts his meetings with western big-wigs to sure up their credibility. "See how much the UK and US respect me"

McGuinness is tolerated because of his position (in the past of course!) within the IRA and the fact that he can bring plenty of people along with him, who might otherwise turn to violence. Not because he's a respected world leader.

Yes, didn't McGuinness and Sinn Fein have representatives in Colombia at one stage somewhere out in the jungle. Libya, North Korea, Czechosemtexia (before the fall of the Berlin Wall) and Cuba were other international partners as well, I think.

Godge

where do i go from here wrote: »

And if you get fed up with listening to barstool republicans you could spend an evening or two with many of the good people of creggan and the bogside and rosemount and everywhere else who had no time for McG and his private army.

Or travel abroad and meet the many genuine nationalist people in the North who had to emigrate because of fear of reprisal from their own community. Poor Jean McConville wasn't as lucky as they were to get away not that you would call being forced to emigrate lucky.

I Heart Internet

Godge wrote: »

Yes, didn't McGuinness and Sinn Fein have representatives in Colombia at one stage somewhere out in the jungle. Libya, North Korea, Czechosemtexia (before the fall of the Berlin Wall) and Cuba were other international partners as well, I think.

Czechosemtexia LOL:)

You've put your finger on it there Godge. Martin McGuinness is widely respected internationally by terrorists and terrorist sympathisers. In fact, he's one of the best terrorists there is, I'd say.

RandomName2

hangon wrote: »

Dev and Collins took part in the rising,what is often overlooked is that they had almost no public support until the executions took place,that is what riled the people.
it was not a very clever move by the UK's force's.
without the executions 1916 might only have gone down as an 'incident' in history,not a source of inspiration for further rebellion.

Collins never intended to stop at the Treaty but saw it as a stepping stone to getting the 32.
Dev was more interested in power,when he sent Collins to do his dirty work and judged that the Treaty was not going down well on the Island he turned on Collins.
it should have been Dev sitting down with Llyod George,he instead let Collins identity be revealed then hung him out to dry.

Llyod gave a very time limited offer of the 26 to Collins,26 or nothing except a major clampdown on Republicans.

MMG and Gerry Adams learned this lesson well and did not divide like Dev and Collins,that is why i still suggest that MMG and G Adams will be judged very well by history.

+1 (mostly :P)

Incidentally the deaths of civilians was one of the reasons for the surrender of the 1916 forces - not that that did much to soften the anger of those Dubliners who pelted them with rotten fruit after the surrender.

I don't think Collins did divide - or at least did not do much that he couldn't have otherwise avoided.

MMG and Adams have divided their party as Sinn Fein has always been liable to divide (it's had five so far in its long, disjointed, anachronistic history). Mind you, that division was one of the only good things they have done - they divided in the same way that DeV divided Sinn Fein 3 when he chose to enter the Dail.

caseyann

Godge wrote: »

Wow, you think I live in the past?

In the present, I am confronted with a man who has admitted to being a member of a terrorist organisation and refuses to condemn as murder the killings by that terrorist organisation. Furthermore, there is more than a whiff of suspicion that he was involved or had knowledge of some of those murders (I have no problem calling them murders). By today's standards, that is unacceptable to me.

In the past, people accepted the likes of De Valera who was guilty of similar things (though a bit like Mcguinness' claims of leaving the IRA in 1974, he spent a lot of the worst time oft he excesses in the US fund-raising and unlike today, you could not fly home in 1920s). That would not be acceptable to me by today's standards.

So I am not living in the past. A terrorist is unacceptable as President of Ireland by today's standards even if such a person was acceptable in the past. When the MMcG apologists stop the De Valera comparisons, they can start accusing others of living in the past.

Ah but you dont object to Ireland doing business with terrorists.
Martin Mc Guinness was a freedom fighter and a human rights fighter.

RandomName2

gambiaman wrote: »

that'd be the criminal Gallagher and FF had no problem grabbing 5k from while Cowen lifted his skirts for a photo?:rolleyes:

Nearly. What Gallagher did wasn't criminal - but he did receive it from a criminal Sinn Feiner.

Sir Oxman

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nearly. What Gallagher did wasn't criminal - but he did receive it from a criminal Sinn Feiner.

I didn't say Gallagher was a criminal!