I don't understand why people are supporting Martin McGuinness

guitarzero

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.

Hmmm, you really havent a clue about war. Thats really the bottom line buddy. You dont know about war my friend, you dont know what a war is. You dont know what war does to everyone involved - the participants, the ones who stood by, the ones who were effected, the ones who didnt want to know what was happening, the ones who had to flee, the ones who did time, the fear, confusion, the loss, the feeling of being left isolated, of having ideologies, thats the problem. You just dont get this. You cant grasp the effect of what its like being caught up in a war bro. This, I think, is where you need to bend your understanding of the human condition or you will continue to sound very unhuman.

Chuck Stone

MazG wrote: »

The reason Det McCabe's murder keeps being brought up in relation to Mr McGuinness's presidential election bit is because he campaigned for the murderers to be released early under the Good Friday Agreement.

That's true. I would be of the opinion that, at the time, abandoning Det McCabes's killers would probably have been political suicide for the SF leadership and perhaps the peace process. Bitter pills were swallowed by many people.

For the record, I am very very glad that there is now peace in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to all involved for bringing it about. However, that does not mean that I would elect any of them president.

Me too. I wouldn't vote for SF personally but I come from a Nationalist background so I can 'wear those shoes' even though they are an uncomfortable fit.

MazG

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's true. I would be of the opinion that, at the time, abandoning Det McCabes's killers would probably have been political suicide for the SF leadership and perhaps the peace process. Bitter pills were swallowed by many people.

You may well be correct in your analysis. High prices were indeed paid to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

However, the voters of the republic are entitled to say to their presidential candidate 'You did things that I disapprove of. I will not be voting for you' without being labelled 'West Brits' or Revisionists.

Disleksic

guitarzero wrote: »

Hmmm, you really havent a clue about war. Thats really the bottom line buddy. You dont know about war my friend, you dont know what a war is. You dont know what war does to everyone involved - the participants, the ones who stood by, the ones who were effected, the ones who didnt want to know what was happening, the ones who had to flee, the ones who did time, the fear, confusion, the loss, the feeling of being left isolated, of having ideologies, thats the problem. You just dont get this. You cant grasp the effect of what its like being caught up in a war bro. This, I think, is where you need to bend your understanding of the human condition or you will continue to sound very unhuman.

Been up all night playing Call of Duty again, have we? War is hell.

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think Jerry McCabe was a special case - how obnoxiously insensitive - but he is just one example.

There are many people on this site who like to use Jerry McCabe's death, which btw I think was a brutish and cowardly act, in an attempt to lend weight to their hatred of all things SF. I think that is incredibly insensitive.

That's because it had nothing to do with the North, gave our security forces the ultimate two-fingers, and because SF chose to associate themselves regardless.

In the same way as anyone associated with FF is, to some extent, tainted by that party's actions, anyone associated with SF has to be asked why they choose to be part of a party that took forever to condemn a murder and that collected common cowardly thugs who had nothing to do with any peace process from jail.

Chuck Stone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

because SF chose to associate themselves regardless.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that, at the time, abandoning Det McCabes's killers would probably have been political suicide for the SF leadership and perhaps the peace process. Bitter pills were swallowed by many people.

.

maccored

Fitzerb wrote: »

Martin keeps tells us to move and put the past behind us.
This week SF refused to attend an Anglo Irish conference because it was to be held in the Grand Hotel Brighton.

thats weird considering SF's Barry McElduff was at it .... Im sure there were other SF people there too.

phog

maccored wrote: »

I read that 5 times and I still cant understand it. I said there were people who didnt have time for mmg before the peace process, but who now do. I dont see how thats to related to whatever them words up there are trying to say.


Theres an option now for dialogue that never existed before - which is why many people (including mmg) have no time for 'dissidents'.

I'm assuming you'd prefer that he didnt do the whole politics and peace thing then, right? You should really concentrate hard and decide on one or the other. it makes this whole debate thing less confusing

As you say "there were people who didnt have time for mmg before the peace process, but who now do" and I say there was people who stood by Martin before and do not do so now, meaning support for people change.

I'm very happy he along with others agreed the peace process but I see the irony of an IRA commander condeming others for bombing because they dont have a mandate when SF/IRA never had a mandate from the Irish people to carry out their atrocities.

phog

wow sierra wrote: »

Just curious - could you name any of the victims of the Shankhill butchers or even hazard a guess as to how many innocent people they killed. Ever heard of the Miami showband, Dublin and Monaghan bombings - or do they not count??

Hierarchy of victims isn't it?

Are any of the people that carried out these atrocites associated with a Presidential Candidate?

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

because SF chose to associate themselves regardless.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that, at the time, abandoning Det McCabes's killers would probably have been political suicide for the SF leadership and perhaps the peace process. Bitter pills were swallowed by many people.

.

So you said. But the same excuse could be put forward re any gang where a member tips off the Gardai re a crime, triggering an allout drugs war or something.

Should we not condemn their crimes either, just in case they decide to continue what they shouldn't have been doing in the first place ?

And whatever about the bias behind their decisions, why are we not allowed to object ?

If Dana condemns abortion, she'll lose half the country; if she u-turns and supports it, she'll lose the other half. It's her decision to make.

But she wouldn't slander people as "West Brit" if they decided that her decision made her unacceptable for office based on their beliefs and standards.

In the same way, Gallagher thought it OK to lie - that's the FF way......people who object to that won't vote for him.

The same applies to Norris - his views on things HE can justify to himself rule him out.

Let McG make his decisions, but don't be surprised if those of us who object to murder have ruled him out as a result.

I Heart Internet

If I'm not going to vote for Sean Gallagher because I suspect he's telling lies and has a murky past then there can be no way I could vote for Martin McGuinness who's murky past involves membership of an organisation that has killed people.

I've tried to make the above statement as dispassionist as possible. I have questions/worries over many of the candidates in the current election. The questions hanging over McG are just of a higher order of importance imho - life and death.

And if you say he's answered those questions and you believe him - fine. Good for you. I've heard his answers and I don't believe him - nor do i believe Sean Gallagher.

If i think you're a liar - you're not getting my vote.

walrusgumble

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Dev or Collins didn't plant bombs in civilian areas.

No, but their men shot anyone they suspected as a spy. Its not like many of Collin's people had any decent material for bombs even if it wanted too.

walrusgumble

LordSutch wrote: »

I have no idea why anybody (but a Sinn Fein supporter) would vote for Martin McGuinness as our next President!
Martin McGuinness was in the Provisional IRA, one of the most ruthless terrorist organisations to ever exist, McGuinness admits he was a Provo, which by association makes him part of that machine, for they murdered in Northern Ireland, they bombed in Britain, they murdered in the Republic too! (McGuinness & Adams always refused to condemn murders), they made people 'disappear', they planted bombs in busses, in pubs, in shopping centres, they planted bombs under cars, they shot people at point blank range, they specialised in knee cappings, booby traps, and all manner of torture.

And then we had the 'peace process', a peace process that took much longer than it should have done, due to the PIRA dragging their feet! The peace process included many players (including those who wished to come in from the cold). And as regards McGuinness running in this election, it was all a stunt, he never had a chance of winning (far too many enemies down here), but the plan was to raise the SF profile in the South, and I guess to that extent they have succeeded, if only for several weeks )

Fine Gael Lead Government did not exactly cover themselves in glory, and completely shat on the work of Reynolds FG. The politicio elites have to take some of the blame for the delays too. (some, not all)

Happyman42

lugha wrote: »

The IRA announced their cessation of violence in 94 and, after throwing a strop, again a couple of years later. There certainly was a lot of huffing and puffing about issues such as whether the cessation was “permanent” and the issue of decommissioning and things largely about face saving but anyone who was around at that time (and I suspect you were not) were in no doubt that the clear message from republicans was that they were saying that they were done with their “war”. Your bizarre interpretation that the Sinn Fein boast in electoral fortunes that began around that time was because PIRA had not renounced violence and not because it was widely accepted that by some mechanism they would, is precisely that, your bizarre interpretation. I have heard no one else, be they supporter or critic of republicanism that subscribe to this fanciful view.

Stop squirming Lugha, you've been caught trying to write your own version of history. THE IRA DID NOT RENOUNCE VIOLENCE UNTIL 2005

On July 28, 2005 the IRA stated that it was entering a new era in which it would unequivocally renounce violence: The statement said that IRA members have been "instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programs through exclusively political means," and that "all I.R.A. units have been ordered to dump arms" and "to complete the process to verifiably put its arms beyond use."

You consistently use facts to suit your own agenda. It is immediately obvious to me and most people interested in the north what kind of a person you are talking to when for instance, you mention John Hume. YOU and others buy the Nobel Peace prize winning version created largely by the British and certain Irish governments. If you took the time to actually ask the people.... the electorate, you would quickly see that Hume's elevation was a desperate attempt by the British and Irish to shore up the moderates.
On the ground though, he and the SDLP were losing relevance very fast, as a more and more educated and informed working class began to see through the bull****.

Now read the REAL version of the lead up to the GFA. Notice how SF and The IRA BARGAINED for the best deal. DO NOT simply buy the British version.
The IRA refused to decommission, they won, the Unionists and John Major's government capitulated and Sinn Fein where allowed to the table.
Sinn Fein signed a declaration that they renounced violence and committed to non violent means.......now, read carefully here Lugha....THE IRA SIGNED A DOCUMENT THAT SAID THEY DID NOT! Spin that from the British point of view please?
SF, cynically and for political expediency where seen as SEPARATE to the IRA then and the talks where allowed to continue and SF won major victories for their people in the negotiations. Hence the celebrations. but now of course, SF/IRA are seen as one entity for political expediency again.
The PEOPLE have not and will not forget that Lugha. Stay in your box Lugha, it's were the British and Irish partitiionists want you to stay.

Dudess

wow sierra wrote: »

Just curious - could you name any of the victims of the Shankhill butchers or even hazard a guess as to how many innocent people they killed. Ever heard of the Miami showband, Dublin and Monaghan bombings - or do they not count??

Hierarchy of victims isn't it?

Why is there always an assumption that those who cite provo atrocities automatically don't have any regard for victims of loyalist/security forces atrocities?

ALL of it was rotten - no matter where it came from. Even though it was understandable that catholics decided enough was enough in the late 60s and part of the armed campaign was self defence (and understandably so) it mutated into something all together savage. Blowing up kids on another island is not self defence.

We are discussing Martin McGuinness here, hence the focus on provo atrocities. The whataboutery doesn't change anything about his record. It's absolutely sickening to see people, some of whom are parents, willing to assign to the past what he was so closely connected with.

I don't think they'd be so willing to "move on from the past" when it comes to Bloody Sunday or Greysteel. And rightly so.

fishy fishy

Dudess wrote: »

Why is there always an assumption that those who cite provo atrocities automatically don't have any regard for victims of loyalist/security forces atrocities?

ALL of it was rotten - no matter where it came from. Even though it was understandable that catholics decided enough was enough in the late 60s and part of the armed campaign was self defence (and understandably so) it mutated into something all together savage. Blowing up kids on another island is not self defence.

We are discussing Martin McGuinness here, hence the focus on provo atrocities.

curious, what would you call shooting kids in the back?

Dudess

fishy fishy wrote: »

curious, what would you call shooting kids in the back?

What the hell are you curious about? I've just said I condemn loyalist/security forces atrocities and provo atrocities equally, yet STILL the whataboutery?

And what do you think I'd call shooting kids in the back? Am I supposed to say I think it's brilliant or something?

:rolleyes:

10000maniacs

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.

Hello Gay, welcome to the boards. You finally found the time to join.

Happyman42

Dudess wrote: »

What the hell are you curious about? I've just said I condemn loyalist/security forces atrocities and provo atrocities equally, yet STILL the whataboutery?

And what do you think I'd call shooting kids in the back? Am I supposed to say I think it's brilliant or something?

:rolleyes:

There is no solution if you follow your view to it's logical conclusion, your view could only support the status quo. Do nothing is your solution.
The fact is that the side that was being WRONGED had no choice. They had been abandoned and Dublin wasn't coming to their rescue. Dublin/London allowed the lid to come off and we all paid for 30 years.

One side was fundamentally wrong and the other had right on their side.

That a group of men and women seen the only solution as 'Freedom' form a tyrannical government (they supported and rubber stamped Unionist discrimination and bigotry) echoed what Pearse, and the men/women of 1916 seen as THE ONLY alternative.
Remember, funding for the IRA in Derry was collected door to door. The people were paying for own protection. The IRA were very very reluctant to shoot any British at the beginning. If you were not around at the time, read the social histories, the personal stories, that don't have overt agendas. Fascinating stuff.

squonk

The bottom line here is that, like it or not, an awful lot of people in the republic couldn't give two flying figs about Northern Ireland. Frankly there was enough to deal with getting the republic up and running and keeping it going to contend with.

Right now we can barely keep the 26 counties we've got going without taking on 6 more.

The assembly in NI is a Fisher Price parliament. It's there to get Unionists and Republicans talking and working with each other. It's highly subsided both from here, the UK and elsewhere. Had they real world conditions to deal with and their own fundraising to do, things would be far harder and that will come in time.

Given that, it's a joke for SF to try to expand into southern politics given characters like Adams and McGuinness in their ranks and the fact that they need to get their own house in order in NI before setting up down here.

My vote for the GFA was to put an end to the bloodshed across the border and hopefully save some lives up there.

I don't consider MMG or any of the SF members fit to tie myshoelaces let alone sit in Dail Eireann or hold any office in the Republic.

They are usurpers and have had no problems in the past condoning acts which involved murders of members of the defence forces of our Republic.

I can't actually understand how MMG could even have the gall to show his face down here. Decent people wouldn't, but decent people wouldn't have gone near any of the types of activites MMG & Co were involved in.

SF sicken and sadden me. I woudln't cross the road to speak to any of them.

phog

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is no solution if you follow your view to it's logical conclusion, your view could only support the status quo. Do nothing is your solution.
The fact is that the side that was being WRONGED had no choice. They had been abandoned and Dublin wasn't coming to their rescue. Dublin/London allowed the lid to come off and we all paid for 30 years.

One side was fundamentally wrong and the other had right on their side.

That a group of men and women seen the only solution as 'Freedom' form a tyrannical government (they supported and rubber stamped Unionist discrimination and bigotry) echoed what Pearse, and the men/women of 1916 seen as THE ONLY alternative.
Remember, funding for the IRA in Derry was collected door to door. The people were paying for own protection. The IRA were very very reluctant to shoot any British at the beginning. If you were not around at the time, read the social histories, the personal stories, that don't have overt agendas. Fascinating stuff.

Why was the post office truck robbed in Adare that lead to the murder of Jerry McCabe, the IRA wanted used stamps , was it? Get real the IRA was funded by armed robbery, kidnapping and extortion.

maccored

I think its pretty obvious that the 'irish' people in the south dont give a flying **** about what happened in the other part of their own country. The country is full of me feiners I suppose, as successive southern governments have shown. Its a sad reflection.

Happyman42

phog wrote: »

Why was the post office truck robbed in Adare that lead to the murder of Jerry McCabe, the IRA wanted used stamps , was it? Get real the IRA was funded by armed robbery, kidnapping and extortion.

Christ, I'm sorry, I forgot you have to answer in the Ladybird history book style.

....at the time funding for the IRA in Derry was collected door to door.

I really did think that the word 'remember' would have covered that, but there you go. :rolleyes:

Why did the robbery happen? I genuinely believe that it was a 'renegade' action. Again, if you look closely and without blinkers, you will see Adams and McGuinness playing a very very cagey game to keep the organisation in line. It is stark evidence for me that McG wasn't in the IRA if you look at how genuinely shocked they were at the time.
Look at republican history. To give these men up would have thrown the whole SF organisation into disarray. Make no mistake about it, Adams/McGuinness and others genuinely risked their own lives. Others gave their lives for their beliefs as to where the organisation should go.
But from time to time they were outfoxed by elements within, with their own agendas. Happens in every army in the world.
Should the entire peace process break down because of a few deaths? The answer to that is as nasty as the whole troubles where....NO. And all parties who created the GFA and who signed up to it, knew that.

walrusgumble

squonk wrote: »

The bottom line here is that, like it or not, an awful lot of people in the republic couldn't give two flying figs about Northern Ireland. Frankly there was enough to deal with getting the republic up and running and keeping it going to contend with.

Right now we can barely keep the 26 counties we've got going without taking on 6 more.

Yet, they feel qualified to judge and comment on areas, they know little about . That is the problem Republicans have; dealing with comments where it is abundantly clear, the maker of such comments knows/knew SFA as to what was/is going on.

As for not caring, no one can argue that "an awful lot of people" don't care, that is clearly evident, and always has been. One does hope then, they they don't get all bar stool republican when they butcher songs like Fields of Athenry etc and all the usual examples when they find a new found interest in the North. (that crap should not be done anyway)

That is all fine, and yes there is enough of things to be worried about, but it don't give people the right to treat Northerns who profess their Irish Citizenship as if they were foreign. It is not like one is dealing with First - Second Generation Americans here.

squonk wrote: »

The assembly in NI is a Fisher Price parliament. It's there to get Unionists and Republicans talking and working with each other. It's highly subsided both from here, the UK and elsewhere. Had they real world conditions to deal with and their own fundraising to do, things would be far harder and that will come in time.

Given that, it's a joke for SF to try to expand into southern politics given characters like Adams and McGuinness in their ranks and the fact that they need to get their own house in order in NI before setting up down here.

Sinn Féin have always had a presence in the South. A number of them were elected in the 1980's to Dáil Éireann. Eg Ruairi O'Bradaigh. You obviously missed them, after all they never sat in.

Didn't the people vote these guys into Dáil Éireann. If, and that is a big if, they have something positive to contribute, then no one can argue. Adams never took any control over SF at NI government level.

squonk wrote: »

My vote for the GFA was to put an end to the bloodshed across the border and hopefully save some lives up there.

I don't consider MMG or any of the SF members fit to tie myshoelaces let alone sit in Dail Eireann or hold any office in the Republic.

Fine, but others might. Your shoe laces must be very precious (sorry, only messing) Why have a go at other SF members. Mitchell McLaughlin had no time for the IRA either, and he had his windows smashed in recently by RIRA. PIRA did not really trust him. Pearse Doherty & ML McDonald (former FF girl btw - I know ML McD is a bad example but she aint no killing bitch) etc have nothing to do with the past - and SF don't support violence or calls to over throw society. When you put say Doherty into take, and solely on the real basis of why you don't think SF are fit, I find it ridiculous when you consider alot of self serving politicians past and present who entered the Dáil and even held the highest office in the land.

Whether you like it or not, you won't be able to use the bat on SF forever (unless its on economics or bread and butter issues) so make the last hurrah an enjoyable one.

squonk wrote: »

They are usurpers and have had no problems in the past condoning acts which involved murders of members of the defence forces of our Republic.

I can't actually understand how MMG could even have the gall to show his face down here. Decent people wouldn't, but decent people wouldn't have gone near any of the types of activites MMG & Co were involved in.

SF sicken and sadden me. I woudln't cross the road to speak to any of them.

The "are" usurpers? Get your facts correct on that one, today is the 27th October 2011

First of all, be honest, McCabe is the only one that you can think of. Lets get one thing straight. The deaths of McCabe, Hand, Kelly and others was wrong. Utterly wrong. And even against the IRA's own laws. There is no justification.

Now, anyone who understand SF know damn well, what they say is not always what they mean. That was well know in the IRA, hence why it took them so long to see to their ends. SF only got the IRA to give up by wheeling out IRA Veterans / "Legends" like Joe Cahill. This incident happened in 1996. You remember 1996, don't you? What was SF and SDLP trying to do? You think GFA came all of a sudden within one year?

SF condemning IRA at that period, you would kiss good bye any GFA, because unlike SDLP, SF were the only party to have remote amount of influence on the IRA. And that was only because of the personnel like McGuinness.


I remember Fianna Fáil trying to show their face up in the North, notions of expanding there too. Funny, ALL parties in the North, for different reasons were not to fond of that. Self Interest or something like that I believe.

As for "taking" 6 counties, who said we are? We are voting for a President. Anyone stupid enough to think that "taking" 6 counties is that easy and could be done soon, should really stop talking about this area (I am not referring to you). It will take a lot more than pretty speeches (no not by force either) to convince the other side

ardmacha

Eamonn DeValera was president, although he was the leader of a faction that actually fought directly against the State in a civil war. The present government contains a minister convicted of drunk driving, there were only a couple of years in NI when the death toll in the troubles exceeded that on the road. You can make a strong case against McGuinness, and decide not to vote for him. But the premise of the thread is that there it is not possible to understand why people may wish to put the past to one side, when this has always happened.

Dudess

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is no solution if you follow your view to it's logical conclusion, your view could only support the status quo. Do nothing is your solution.

No it isn't - I'm fully in agreement that catholics had to defend themselves.

The fact is that the side that was being WRONGED had no choice.

But things didn't have to go so far that bombs were planted which killed people who did NOTHING to them.

One side was fundamentally wrong and the other had right on their side.

The latter became wrong too when the armed campaign was stepped up.

That a group of men and women seen the only solution as 'Freedom' form a tyrannical government

N.I. itself had tyrannical aspects to it if you were a catholic, especially a poor catholic. But I don't agree with that assessment of Westminster.

Remember, funding for the IRA in Derry was collected door to door. The people were paying for own protection.

In the early days, I don't doubt it one bit.

maccored wrote: »

I think its pretty obvious that the 'irish' people in the south dont give a flying **** about what happened in the other part of their own country. The country is full of me feiners I suppose, as successive southern governments have shown. Its a sad reflection.

Are you referring purely to people who don't support Martin McGuinness in his presidential bid? Because I don't - and I do give a sh1t about Northern Ireland. What about also giving a sh1t though about what went on under McGuinness?

maccored

Dudess wrote: »

Are you referring purely to people who don't support Martin McGuinness in his presidential bid? Because I don't - and I do give a sh1t about Northern Ireland. What about also giving a sh1t though about what went on under McGuinness?

No - I am referring those (and there are many) who are of the idea that the north matters nothing, as its a foreign country etc etc.

What do you mean 'what went on under mcguinness' - as if he was the sole person responsible for what happened? I give a sh1t about what went under under the control of the IRA, the loyalists, the british government ... the lot of them. I understand that things happened that shouldnt have happened, things that werent good - but I accept they happened as its pretty hard for a comflict to take place without such things. You can point fingers if you want at one side, but many of us can point other fingers at other sides. Feel free to waste your time going on like that all day .. makes no odds to me.

I accept that bad things happened and I also accept that due to to the way things panned out, it was probably quite unavoidable - or at least certainly too late to change now by giving out about it. that goes for all sides - enniskillen, blood sunday, omagh, loughgall and the zillion other terrible things.

It does get my goat though when people complain about this stuff now, as though its going to make any difference and try to play political games with the info. the time to complain was then and unfortunately too many people left those in the north to look after themselves. not too many gave a sh1t.

Happyman42

Dudess wrote: »

No it isn't - I'm fully in agreement that catholics had to defend themselves.

But things didn't have to go so far that bombs were planted which killed people who did NOTHING to them.

Once the lid comes off, people on the high moral ground can only...well, .....look down on the events. It is why the politics of condemnation never will and never have saved one life. Condemnation is the proverbial lighthouse in a bog....fantastic but absolutely useless!

The lid should never have come off, that was the job of the governments. On one side you had a government who didn't and couldn't care because they would have to face up to and admit that they and their previous incarnations had abandoned and ignored NI for 60 odd years and on the other side you had a British Government intent on maintaining the status-quo after conceding some basic human rights issues. They left the void, and are ultimately to blame. History will look at their intransigence with bewilderment.

The situation was impossible. Everybody was wrong and did wrong in some way. You have to decide who did the right thing to get us to where we are and to put the lid back on in a way that it won't come off again.

SeamusFX

I find it ironic that people who were praising the Queen during her visit are condemning McGuinness. The Queen is just as guilty of murder, if not more, as any one who was once a member of Sinn Féin.

Fortunately we have peace now and we can all move on, but unfortunately many including the media don't want to move on, at least regarding the Republicans. Because of the peace I could accept allowing the Queen to visit, although I wouldn't bother to look out my window to see her, but I would also no longer be bothered to protest her visit. Meanwhile it seemed like half the country went out of their way to lick her 'whole'.

Live4Ever

maccored wrote: »

I think its pretty obvious that the 'irish' people in the south dont give a flying **** about what happened in the other part of their own country. The country is full of me feiners I suppose, as successive southern governments have shown. Its a sad reflection.

Dead right there man.

And all the kids these days hear 'IRA' and think 'ooh that's those knackers from the north, murdering bastards'. Yet there's no thought or sympathy for the Irish people who were killed.

Look folks, the British killed Irish, we killed them back. It was war. This is what happens. The IRA have since put their guns down.

Martin McGuinnes is not or ever was a terrorist.

phog

Happyman42 wrote: »

Christ, I'm sorry, I forgot you have to answer in the Ladybird history book style.

....at the time funding for the IRA in Derry was collected door to door.

I really did think that the word 'remember' would have covered that, but there you go. :rolleyes:

Why did the robbery happen? I genuinely believe that it was a 'renegade' action. Again, if you look closely and without blinkers, you will see Adams and McGuinness playing a very very cagey game to keep the organisation in line. It is stark evidence for me that McG wasn't in the IRA if you look at how genuinely shocked they were at the time.
Look at republican history. To give these men up would have thrown the whole SF organisation into disarray. Make no mistake about it, Adams/McGuinness and others genuinely risked their own lives. Others gave their lives for their beliefs as to where the organisation should go.
But from time to time they were outfoxed by elements within, with their own agendas. Happens in every army in the world.
Should the entire peace process break down because of a few deaths? The answer to that is as nasty as the whole troubles where....NO. And all parties who created the GFA and who signed up to it, knew that.

The robbery in Adare wasn't the first armed robbery by the IRA.

At the time............

Mr. O'Malley: With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 140, 142 and 149 together.

In the period from 31st March, 1970, to 21st October, 1971, a total of 45 armed robberies were committed, 37 of them since 1st November, 1970. Eight of the robberies were on bank premises. In the same period there was one bank robbery that was not an armed robbery.

The total amount of money and the value of property reported to the Garda as having been taken in the robberies was £67,311, of which £33,320 was money reported as taken in the bank robberies. Arrests were made in 12 cases, one case being an armed bank robbery.

It would not be in the public interest to give details of the number of gardaí detailed to give specific attention to [1279] these crimes. Both general instructions and specific instructions where it appeared that these might be necessary or useful have been issued from time to time by the commissioner in relation to them.

I wonder had the IRA their greedy hands on any of these robberies.

Happyman42

phog wrote: »

The robbery in Adare wasn't the first armed robbery by the IRA.

At the time............



I wonder had the IRA their greedy hands on any of these robberies.

Freedom fighters can apply to the government for funds?....hmmm I must have missed that UN Convention phog.

Did you think that being on the run and in the IRA, was a part time job?

'Thanks for the dinner luv, I'm off out to free Ireland this evening, you don't mind sitting here with the kids do you?' :rolleyes:

MagicMoose

Live4Ever wrote: »

Martin McGuinnes is not or ever was a terrorist.

Yes he was.

Live4Ever

MagicMoose wrote: »

Yes he was.

You're talking crap. Bin Laden was a terrorist. McGuinness was involved in a war.

I'd like to see your view on Martin being a terrorist if your front door was smashed down by British Forces and someone in your family beaten up or worse. People like him were standing up for the innocent at the time.

You haven't a fcuking clue mate.

Liam Byrne

Live4Ever wrote: »

Dead right there man.

And all the kids these days hear 'IRA' and think 'ooh that's those knackers from the north, murdering bastards'. Yet there's no thought or sympathy for the Irish people who were killed.

That's rubbish for a start. Most of us object to ALL murders of innocent people.

Live4Ever wrote: »

Look folks, the British killed Irish, we killed them back.

The IRA chose to kill innocent people who hadn't killed any Irish.

And ditch the "we".

Liam Byrne

SeamusFX wrote: »

I find it ironic that people who were praising the Queen during her visit are condemning McGuinness. The Queen is just as guilty of murder, if not more, as any one who was once a member of Sinn Féin.

She visited. I haven't seen anyone protesting at McGuinness's visit.......if that was what he was doing there would be no objection from me.

If, however, the Queen was running for President, it would be a different story.

So you can't equate a visit with looking for votes.

SeamusFX wrote: »

Because of the peace I could accept allowing the Queen to visit, although I wouldn't bother to look out my window to see her, but I would also no longer be bothered to protest her visit.

And we would no longer protest at a visit from McGuinness.

Treat like with like, please. Otherwise it's called "whataboutery".

MagicMoose

Live4Ever wrote: »

You're talking crap. Bin Laden was a terrorist. McGuinness was involved in a war.

I'd like to see your view on Martin being a terrorist if your front door was smashed down by British Forces and someone in your family beaten up or worse. People like him were standing up for the innocent at the time.

You haven't a fcuking clue mate.

Actually I do. The PIRA was a terrorist organisation, deemed as such by most governments in the world. McGuinness was a high ranking member of this organisation. This organisation murdered innocent men, women and children in cold blood and engaged in all kinds of criminal and murderous activities from robberies, extortions, kidnappings, punishment beatings and so on.

So why was Bin Laden a terrorist and McGuinness not?

kilns

McGuinness was more than a terrorist he is a war criminal for some of the crimes he oversaw

maccored

kilns wrote: »

McGuinness was more than a terrorist he is a war criminal for some of the crimes he oversaw

yes, thats why he's been accused of such, arrested and put in jail forever ... actually hang on - he hasnt. Maybe because such accusations have no foundation ... yeah, thats probably why. Amazes me people keep on talking it though.

Fantastic democracy we have - innocent until enough people repeat the same crap.

markesmith

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The IRA chose to kill innocent people who hadn't killed any Irish.

Dresden. Hiroshima. My Lai. There is always collateral damage in a war. These things aren't fought in boxing rings.

kilns wrote: »

McGuinness was more than a terrorist he is a war criminal for some of the crimes he oversaw

Churchill. Roosevelt. Lyndon Johnson. While we're splitting hairs.

kilns

I love the way the SF/IRA mob can justify executing innocent people as collateral damage!!!

Disgraceful

Liam Byrne

markesmith wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The IRA chose to kill innocent people who hadn't killed any Irish.

Dresden. Hiroshima. My Lai. There is always collateral damage in a war. These things aren't fought in boxing rings.

I don't accept the despicable phrase "collateral damage" when the yanks & brits use it re Iraq, and I definitely don't accept it from someone looking to be our president.

Was Bloody Sunday just "collateral damage" so ?

And before you answer, bear in mind that my reply is 100% consistent across the board; I don't take sides when innocents are murdered.

Simtech

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't accept the despicable phrase "collateral damage" when the yanks & brits use it re Iraq, and I definitely don't accept it from someone looking to be our president.

Was Bloody Sunday just "collateral damage" so ?

And before you answer, bear in mind that my reply is 100% consistent across the board; I don't take sides when innocents are murdered.

Aren't you lucky to have never had to take a side!?

SeamusFX

Liam Byrne wrote: »

She visited. I haven't seen anyone protesting at McGuinness's visit.......if that was what he was doing there would be no objection from me.

If, however, the Queen was running for President, it would be a different story.

So you can't equate a visit with looking for votes.



And we would no longer protest at a visit from McGuinness.

Treat like with like, please. Otherwise it's called "whataboutery".

Liam,

You completely missed my point, which was:
- Why are people accusing MMG of murder, when the Queen came here, half the country fell over each other to kiss her 'whole', when she has a lot more blood on her hands?

Wake up, there's been a peace agreement, as much as many here may have hated the Brits and the Unionists in the past, we are now thankful that they too have declared peace and the Nationalist have accepted them and are no longer pointing fingers or accusing them of their atrocities of the past. We now have peace - thank God and we are prepared to forget the troubles and move on and for the most part so are they. Unfortunately many here in the Republic including our media have easily forgotten the atrocities of the British and Unionists, but continue to point fingers at their own people - who have helped to bring about unprecedented peace!

dublin_1990

guitarzero wrote: »

Hmmm, you really havent a clue about war. Thats really the bottom line buddy. You dont know about war my friend, you dont know what a war is. You dont know what war does to everyone involved - the participants, the ones who stood by, the ones who were effected, the ones who didnt want to know what was happening, the ones who had to flee, the ones who did time, the fear, confusion, the loss, the feeling of being left isolated, of having ideologies, thats the problem. You just dont get this. You cant grasp the effect of what its like being caught up in a war bro. This, I think, is where you need to bend your understanding of the human condition or you will continue to sound very unhuman.

I understand. Fighting for your country against the British soldiers is obviously ok, killing civilians is obviously not. Planting bombs were you know innocent people will be isn't a war it's terrorism.
I get it do you?

dublin_1990

10000maniacs wrote: »

Hello Gay, welcome to the boards. You finally found the time to join.

Hello gay??? Seriously???

Chuck Stone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Otherwise it's called "whataboutery".

Those who cry whataboutery often invite it due to their selective amnesia.

It's as if they have to be prodded (no pun intended) into remembering why the conflict arose in the first place.

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Otherwise it's called "whataboutery".

Those who cry whataboutery often invite it due to their selective amnesia.

It's as if they have to be prodded (no pun intended) into remembering why the conflict arose in the first place.

You see, that's the issue; we know how and why the conflict occurred, despite the patronising guff from apologists.

That's the "fighting back" that the likes of MMG tries to pretend was the limit of the IRA activities.

What we don't know is why they started targeting innocents.

hangon

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What we don't know is why they started targeting innocents.

because people who had principles however bizarre it might have seemed to some people attracted a bunch of psycho's to the organisation who enjoyed the killing of others.

K-9

After watching Spotlight the other night and McGuinness lying on camera in the 80's about his IRA membership he even went below Mitchell for me! This despite BBC also interviewing in 72 as an IRA representative walking about the bogside.

He gave the politically expedient answer in the 70's, changed it in the 80's and then changed again for the Bloody Sunday Inquiry and has stuck with it since.

As bad as Gallagher tbh, trying to hide his past.

There's a reason he denies his past after 1974 and it's why a lot of people in the Republic wont support him. His refusal to come clean is an implicit acknowledgement they have a point.