I don't understand why people are supporting Martin McGuinness

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.

Liam Byrne

hangon wrote: »

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.

Then those at the top - and within - should have stopped this happening. Kinda like the church should have ensured the kiddy rapists were kicked out.

Wolfe Tone

K-9 wrote: »

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.

It could be the whole getting arrested thing too...

KeithAFC

K-9 wrote: »

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.

People have been saying this since he announced he would be running. Surely people had known about his past and his lying long before that programme aired?

phog

Happyman42 wrote: »

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:

I was always well aware that the IRA robbed banks and kidnapped innocent victims to pay for their evil way and possible pay their army council too. It was you in an earlier post (quoted below) that was trying to mislead people.

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

hangon

Liam Byrne wrote: »

should have ensured the kiddy rapists were kicked out.

Jeepers Liam can't you leave Gerry Adams brother out of this.just this once?

just kidding,it has been a terrific debate on boards across the threads/forums.

Nobody has all the answers but the vast amount of posters have been honest in their posts and it has been enjoyable to journey through the election with you and many others who are totally opposite in their views to you.

well we will know the result very soon and no doubt many will say:

"The people have spoken.......... the B@stards.:)

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It could be the whole getting arrested thing too...

Exactly, it's a politically expedient point in history, plus most of the more objectional and controversial attacks happened after that. Still, he lied in the 80's despite a criminal conviction, one that he never contested, then changed track again for the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Long gone over here before.

KeithAFC wrote: »

People have been saying this since he announced he would be running. Surely people had known about his past and his lying long before that programme aired?

Yeah, it's what most of these threads have been about. Many denied he ever lied about his IRA past, they'll just ignore it even if he was caught on camera. It's like creationists or Tea Partyites.

Dudess

maccored wrote: »

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.

There are indeed people who don't give a toss about the North - and it saddens me too.

What do you mean 'what went on under mcguinness' - as if he was the sole person responsible for what happened?

I mean he was high-ranking. Surely you know what I mean.

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

Again... I condemn violence from all sides, and empathise with catholics who were driven to defending themselves by force. You only have to read my last couple of posts to this thread - you surely saw them. It's ironic when provo apologists resort to "Why aren't you condemning the other side?" as if they themselves are taking a panoramic view.

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.

The queen was born into her role as monarch - you're not comparing like with like. She's a symbolic figurehead too, not an active one. Anyway, who's praising her while condemning McGuinness? I for one don't have time for monarchy.

Live4Ever wrote: »

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.

Yes there is. You're lying. Just because there are a few Conor Cruise O'Brien/Eoghan Harris type twats doesn't mean there's no regard for those who died at the hands of loyalists/the security forces.

Look folks, the British killed Irish, we killed them back. It was war. This is what happens.

Not in my name. And no, stuff like Enniskillen and Warrington isn't "what happens". Some of this "we" you refer to (catholics/nationalists) were killed by the IRA too.

Live4Ever wrote: »

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.

Have you? Did you live in the north? Catholics were treated disgustingly - the security forces were *****. Loyalist paramilitaries are beneath scum... but I still think McGuinness is a terrorist.

A lot of good people are involved with Sinn Féin, and members of it do great community work - my local Sinn Féin counsellor is a lovely guy and even my dad can't praise him highly enough, and my dad is a man who is extremely opposed to Sinn Féin.
Yet... my dad also lived in the north in the late 1960s/early 1970s and he was totally supportive of the republican movement and wanted to help it out in any way he could. He was enraged by the treatment of catholics - and a group of republicans saved him from an attack by a loyalist mob at one point.

But then the republican movement went too far - and people have a problem with that, which is hardly unreasonable. I really don't understand why people are being castigated here for taking issue with IRA atrocities from the early/mid '70s to the '90s...

Sunnyisland

You do highlight a moral problem for many Irish people. They will condemn the provisional IRA about there armed struggle/terrorism, But at the same time will commemorate michael collins every year and the 1916 rebels also and least not forget wolfe tone(The other one)in Bodenstown.Is there not direct links from our present to our past and how do we overcome the problems


Parties with origins in Sinn Féin
Fianna Fáil - formed by Éamon de Valera in 1926 following his resignation from Sinn Féin
Fine Gael – came about through merger of Cumann na nGaedheal—which split from Sinn Féin in April 1923—with the National Centre Party and the Army Comrades Association, to form Fine Gael in 1933.
Clann na Poblachta founded in 1946 by Seán MacBride dissolved in 1965.
Workers' Party (originally described as Official Sinn Féin, formed after the 1970 Sinn Féin split)
Irish Republican Socialist Party (split from Official Sinn Féin in 1975)
Democratic Left - formed from a split from the Workers' Party in 1992; merged into the Labour Party in 1999
Republican Sinn Féin - formed by Ruairí Ó Brádaigh following the 1986 split
32 County Sovereignty Movement - formed in opposition to the direction taken by Sinn Féin in the peace process
Éirígí founded in 2006.
and so on.

How anyone can say there different or went to far I don't understand.

K-9

Well barring FG and FF, all the others either disappeared, split or merged with others or are political non entities, which tells us something.

I agree on the moral dilemna. I think it's arguable that the democratic mandate in 1912 was ignored. 1916 didn't have a democratic mandate but then the previous election was basically voted by men over 30! 18-30 males and women didn't have votes. 1918 did away with any concern in that regard.

It definitely is a dilemna. One that SF face now. What makes the IRA any different from the RIRA?