Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Morlar

There has been much media mileage made out of the prospect of Martin McGuinness being nominated for President of Ireland and if elected become commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann.

So I thought I would ask here, this thread is intended for current or former members of the Irish defence forces - what are your thoughts on this ? Does this prospect actually pose a problem to you ?

Morpheus

i hope he doesn't get in.

he is a terrorist.

he still hasn't admitted his role in the murders that took place during the terrorist attacks both up north and down here and I have no respect for him or his party. but that's just me. I'm sure there are plenty of people here with different views.

Will he be able to admit there is only one Oglaigh Na h'Eireann when he comes down looking for votes.

He is still a member of a secret society.

There is much to make me not want his ilk in office.

Morlar

Can I ask do you think the british establishment has admitted to every off the books killing (including 'accidental shooting'/'thought he had a gun' etc) , every act of death squad collusion & every dirty trick on their part throughout the entirety of the troubles? This would incldue the UVF bombings of Dublin and Monaghan. I am wondering if this is a standard you apply to all sides of that conflict ?

What are your thoughts on the moves for a S.A. style 'Truth and Reconcilliation' comission ? To the best of my knowledge Sinn Fein are the only party seeking that (with the proviso that it applies to all sides equally, not just one side).

Auvers

Morphéus wrote: »

he is a terrorist.

De Valera was once considered a terrorist by the British

also without McGuinness and Adams bringing the most hardline IRA members to the table we would have no peace

time to move on

OS119

Morlar wrote: »

Can I ask do you think the british establishment has admitted to every off the books killing (including 'accidental shooting'/'thought he had a gun' etc) , every act of death squad collusion & every dirty trick on their part throughout the entirety of the troubles? This would incldue the UVF bombings of Dublin and Monaghan. I am wondering if this is a standard you apply to all sides of that conflict ?
...

my, admittedly limited, understanding is that so far the British Establishment hasn't announced its prospective candidacy for the election of the Presidency of Ireland.

Morlar

OS119 wrote: »

..the British Establishment hasn't announced its prospective candidacy for the election of the Presidency of Ireland.

Not anymore they don't.

/Back on topic.

savagecabbages

Coming from a laymans point of view, what role exactly does the president have in 'commanding' the defence forces? I'm assuming its more of a ceremonial role??

I guess members of the defence forces are there to serve the state, and if a president is fairly elected by the people of the state, they must serve under said president.

Are you guys told to leave politics at the door when signing up?

Morpheus

Im not concerned with the British Establishment in this instance, this topic is purely about our concerns with having M mc G as a president. I personally think of him in his guise as a terrorist, a supporter of murderers of irish soldiers and gardai and member of an illegal armed group . My concern is with him. These are just my own opinions and reasons that I wont be voting for him.

i would however be in favour of just such a commission being set up, if it was to be fair, equal and decisive in its findings with honesty and closure from both sides.

You dont leave politics at the door, you are still entitled to vote, you do however not join any political parties, nor (unlike M Mc G) sign up to any illegal organisations or secret societies.

Auvers

Morphéus wrote: »

I personally think of him in his guise as a terrorist, a supporter of murderers of irish soldiers and gardai and member of an illegal armed group

I think you will find that the illegal armed group weapons are decommissioned and have signed a peace treaty and entered into goverment, kind of like what happens in lots of resolved conflicts all over the world

Morphéus wrote: »

You dont leave politics at the door, you are still entitled to vote, you do however not join any political parties, nor (unlike M Mc G) sign up to any illegal organisations or secret societies.

try saying that in the late 60ies early 70ies growing up a catholic in NIreland

Morlar

Morphéus wrote: »

Im not concerned with the British Establishment in this instance, this topic is purely about our concerns with having M mc G as a president. .

That is true, this thread is about President of Ireland, just that the concerns you expressed around barriers to M.McGuinness as potenital President seemed to be one-directional concerns, hence my question about possible double standards. Btw nice to see people engaging with the question honestly even if we disagree.

Morpheus

Thanks,

My comment

You dont leave politics at the door, you are still entitled to vote, you do however not join any political parties, nor (unlike M Mc G) sign up to any illegal organisations or secret societies.

was in reply to savagecabbages, it was only about military law concerning voting and about serving soldiers (reserve and permanent) and not civilians, Its one of the items which you take an oath on.

Also I understand your concerns about being a catholic in NI during the 60s and 70s and gravitating towards one group or another in an effort to have your voice heard by an establishment that in all honesty wasn't always listening to a large portion of the demographic.

It doesn't forgive him or his comrades for the atrocities and murders that they dirtied their hands with. In particular when they engaged violently with the republics state security forces. At this stage, even an admittance and sincere apology for deaths which they see as being a direct result of their sometimes misguided cause, from Martin, would possibly go some way to alleviating the anger and disdain that he is viewed with by a large portion of the republics voting population. Some of us will never forgive them, but like I said about the suggested commission, it would be a start.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Morphéus wrote: »

he is a terrorist.

Was a terrorist, its in the past and time to get over it.

Sure there are a few things I'm uncomfortable with, the murder of Irish soldiers and members of AGS to name but a few.. But the cease fire is something like 17 years old and between MMG and Adams they've done more to move this island towards peace than most anyone else in the last 90 years.

Sure wasn't Micheal Collins a killer too, and don't put on your romantic rose tinted glasses and try draw a difference between 'the old IRA and these shower' - murder is murder is murder, pure and simple.

And we should all remember that this state of born out of terror and killings, as were many other's.

I firmly believe that without SF leaders (in fact scrub 'SF') 'leaders' like MMG and Adams we'd still be fighting a large scale terrorist war here in Ireland.

Instead now we can worry about securing other people's borders against war and terror and enjoy the freedom peace has brought to Ireland.

goldie fish

Remy Disgusting Hawk wrote: »

Was a terrorist, its in the past and time to get over it.

Sure there are a few things I'm uncomfortable with, the murder of Irish soldiers and members of AGS to name but a few.. But the cease fire is something like 17 years old and between MMG and Adams they've done more to move this island towards peace than most anyone else in the last 90 years.

Sure wasn't Micheal Collins a killer too, and don't put on your romantic rose tinted glasses and try draw a difference between 'the old IRA and these shower' - murder is murder is murder, pure and simple.

And we should all remember that this state of born out of terror and killings, as were many other's.

I firmly believe that without SF leaders (in fact scrub 'SF') 'leaders' like MMG and Adams we'd still be fighting a large scale terrorist war here in Ireland.

Instead now we can worry about securing other people's borders against war and terror and enjoy the freedom peace has brought to Ireland.

Indeed, and show the small nations of the world that armed conflict will inevitably lead to a position in the top job of the country you don't recognise.
Disgraceful.
You may have to accept it, but you don't have to like it.

concussion

savagecabbages wrote: »

Coming from a laymans point of view, what role exactly does the president have in 'commanding' the defence forces? I'm assuming its more of a ceremonial role??

I guess members of the defence forces are there to serve the state, and if a president is fairly elected by the people of the state, they must serve under said president.

Are you guys told to leave politics at the door when signing up?

Members of the DF will have to serve under an t'Uachtaráin....if they are members of the DF. I myself will not continue my service if he is elected, however I'm sure there will be those who say I have an easier decision than those in the PDF whose career it is.

arybvtcw0eolkf

goldie fish wrote: »

Indeed, and show the small nations of the world that armed conflict will inevitably lead to a position in the top job of the country you don't recognise.
Disgraceful.

Mandela?.

goldie fish wrote: »

You may have to accept it, but you don't have to like it.

I'm not liking it because MMG is a SF member. I'm liking it because I truely do believe that he has put the past behind him and has moved forward with a vision of peace.

I think its people who are hanging onto MMG's past who are also guilty of hanging onto the violent ways of the past, those days are gone - please God in heaven those days are gone.. So stop looking back.

Of all the candidates in this presidential election MMG (in my very humble opinion) is the only one who has shown vision and who has completely and wholeheartedly taken on the roll of both statesman and peacemaker.

Mahatma coat

I wouldnt vote for MMG as President, I have nothing against the Man I think hes a great Politician and an able Statesman, he has shown his capabilities to negotiate and to Lead when called upon And for those reasons I think he would be utterly wasted in the aras when he still has the capacity to do more in the North for the People of His constituency.

The Presidency is an Almost pointless role that could be fulfilled by any one of a number of Chumps already running, MMG is far more useful in his role as Co-First Minister

something of an aside in this thread tho, Someone said that Serving members of the DF cannot join Illegal or Secret Organisations, does this include Freemasons?????

Stovepipe

As an ex-er, I wouldn't have him anywhere near the Aras, especially given the two female world-class Presidents we've got/had. Wee Marty might be a white-headed boy in West Belfast but he's not remotely as good as the Marys, no matter how nice he is to the Prods. He does know where the bodies are buried, he keeps fobbing off the hard questions and his friends are still conducting or dominating illegal activity on the Border, such as smuggling, rackets, extortion, diesel laundering and the subsequent toxic waste and the rest (never heard him condemn that aspect of the ex-PIRA). He's got blood on his hands and wishy-washy apologies are not enough. He is not fit for our highest office until he publicly proves that he is no longer connected with militant Republicanism.

regards
Stovepipe

Crazy Horse 6

Funny how people can "move on" for the Queens visit (and rightfully so) but are'nt prepered to "move on" when it comes to McGuinness.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Funny how people can "move on" for the Queens visit (and rightfully so) but are'nt prepered to "move on" when it comes to McGuinness.

Or how we all got on our moral high horses and asked the DUP etc to put the past behind them and move the peace process forward, but some can't find it in themselves to do likewise.

Or how we celebrate Mandela and his long walk to freedom but overlook the man's (and the ANC's) past.

cyrusdvirus

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Funny how people can "move on" for the Queens visit (and rightfully so) but are'nt prepered to "move on" when it comes to McGuinness.

Yes, we all moved on. Including Sinn Fein. Who moved on so far one would almost think they boycotted the events...oh wait, they did.

I personally would NOT vote for McGuinness, but i'd have a lot more time for him than I'd have for Adams. McGuinness has (to the best of my knowledge, but am prepared to be corrected) never denied he was in the IRA.

johngalway

I don't believe anyone has or can move on until all the gory details have come out about things which have happened during "The Troubles", on all sides.

Anything else is glorified pretending IMV.

Morlar

johngalway wrote: »

I don't believe anyone has or can move on until all the gory details have come out about things which have happened during "The Troubles", on all sides.

People have moved on.

What you refer to above would fall under the truth and reconcilliation comission which SF have been pushing for, no ?

Unless you meant . . 'all the gory details related to one side of the conflict only'

I love Joan Burton

Morphéus wrote: »

i hope he doesn't get in.

he is a terrorist.

he still hasn't admitted his role in the murders that took place during the terrorist attacks both up north and down here and I have no respect for him or his party. but that's just me. I'm sure there are plenty of people here with different views.

Will he be able to admit there is only one Oglaigh Na h'Eireann when he comes down looking for votes.

He is still a member of a secret society.

There is much to make me not want his ilk in office.

Dislike

HellsAngel

Remy Disgusting Hawk wrote: »

Was a terrorist, its in the past and time to get over it.

Sure there are a few things I'm uncomfortable with, the murder of Irish soldiers and members of AGS to name but a few.. But the cease fire is something like 17 years old and between MMG and Adams they've done more to move this island towards peace than most anyone else in the last 90 years.

Sure wasn't Micheal Collins a killer too, and don't put on your romantic rose tinted glasses and try draw a difference between 'the old IRA and these shower' - murder is murder is murder, pure and simple.

And we should all remember that this state of born out of terror and killings, as were many other's.

I firmly believe that without SF leaders (in fact scrub 'SF') 'leaders' like MMG and Adams we'd still be fighting a large scale terrorist war here in Ireland.

Instead now we can worry about securing other people's borders against war and terror and enjoy the freedom peace has brought to Ireland.

That's true about Collins, Dan Breen, Sean McEoin etc British agents shot in the back of the head the streets of Dublin, some RIC men shot in front of their family's in small towns and villages, informers were found dead in ditches all over the country with IRA pinned on them.

People have these rose tinted glasses to think the IRA 1919 - 1921 was all Kilmicheal, Knocklong, Longford. And indeed how were these ambushes carried out - (1) Mine/grenaddes exploded at passing vehicles (2) 2/3 minutes of exchange or fire (3) IRA move from the scene quickly and mingle back into civie life ASAP. God only knows over the 25 years of the troubles the Provos did the same countless times in south Armagh, Tyrone, Belfast and MMcG's Derry. Get real people.

And what's the crime about MMcG and Adams or Martin Ferris, Dessie Ellis or any other IRA man taking their beliefs into everyday political life. Fianna Fail was packed to the rafters with ex IRA gunmen and bombers when they first went into Govt for God's sake :rolleyes:

Master and commander

So david norris is pushed out and ridiculed for writing a letter for clemency because his partner was covicted of statutory rape.
Yet McGuiness was (debateably still is) a member of a terrorist group and admitted to being involved in many murders and terrorist acts, and they say he's a great fella and welcome him in?

WTF to that i say!

The man is a former terrorist and should be in jail. Period. It's an embarrasment to the state that he is being allowed to run. Its the equivalent to one of the 9/11 perpetrators being allowed run for president of the USA. disgraceful.

The man is now going around shouting his mouth off saying he would be president of ALL ireland. erm, no you won't be. Irish president has jurisdiction over the republic of ireland, absoluteley nothing whatsoever to do with the state in the north, nor should it have. We are quite happy as things are, no need for a (former) kalashnikov wielding nutter like him to go stirring up sh!te.

The prospect of him being in charge of the IDFs is scary really. Who knows what he and his SF henchmen will want to do, turn the Republic of Ireland into Europes North Korea or something. Plus, they [SF] are more or less COMMUNISTS after all. They want a socialist system.

Frankly in this day and age anyone proposing that the socialist sytem is viable has no credibility whatsoever imo. Anyway, them man is a potentially dangerous maniac. Don't give him any opportunity to become one i say!

Waht an embarrasment this whole fiasco is. so embarrased now.

EDIT: now they think hes great cos he "brought peace", well lets not forget it was him and his organisation that started and sustained war and terrorism on the island - so if they were the ones that started it, they absolutely cannot and have no right to claim to be the bringers of peace. Their whole attitude reads like a bad joke. A party with dormant desires for genocide has no business and is not wanted down here.

Morlar

Norris used Seanad Eireann headed paper to write a vile, disgusting letter seeking light treatment for a dirty old man who raped a young male.

Call it statutory rape all you want, minors are simply not legally or morally old enough to give consent.

In addition to that there are his repeated 'sympathetic to pederasty' comments.

How anyone could think an individual of that calibre can compare against a peacemaker like McGuinness is beyond me.

Why not list out Norris' contribution to the island of Ireland against McGuinness contribution ? In the period 1997-present what did Norris deliver for Ireland ?

Also worth noting that the President of Ireland has nothing to do with economic policy whatsoever. Never has and never will.

Master and commander

i'm not saying norris is squeeky clean - he was wrong to do what he did, but it is nothing in comparrison to McGuinesses horrid and bloody past. Yet he is thrown out and McGuiness is embraced. Both should be out or both should be in. There is no consistency.

What did McGuiness and his organisation bring to Ireland? well where will i start, -war, terrorism, murder, torture, punishment beating, knee cappings, bombing innocent civilians, more murder, more torture, theft, robbery, fraud, etc, etc..............................................

they were the instigators of the violence, so they can't claim to have brought peace when they gave up their antics. They just can't. They have successfully deluded themselves on that one but they don't fool anyone else. No matter what they do or say they cannot change their past. They did what they did. And so macgiuness thus can't be called a peacemaker if he was the one that waged terrosm for so long.

Example if al quida called off their campaign tomorrow, would we be calling them peacemakers??? i think not. same goes for SF and mcguiness. they started it so they can't calim to have brought peace. The ones who brought peace are the British and Irish Governments who created an environment where paramilitaries could no longer function as before. They (SF/IRA and unionist paras) were effectively defeated and the British-Irish states were victorious.

Edit: there was peace on this island before SF/IRA stared stirring up sh!te back when they did. Most ordinary people were content enough with the UK of Britain and Ireland until they succumbed to the propaganda of a core of fundamentalist hardliners. The normans came in 1169, its not like they only arrived in 1905 FFS. They came to britain in 1066. Do the british go on about throwing them out like some here do over a 103 year difference in arrival times. No. Grow up ireland. Lets not forget that half of us are of norman decent anyway at this stage. Think about it. It all boils down to good old fashioned begrudgery IMO.

COYW

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Funny how people can "move on" for the Queens visit (and rightfully so) but are'nt prepered to "move on" when it comes to McGuinness.

SF hadn't moved on by then. They boycotted the events and reprimanded one of their members for partaking in the celebrations in Munster. Also, John Hume did more for peace in NI than McGuinness and Adams put together. He did the hard work at the start and McGuinness jumped on his coat-tails and made a name for himself.

John Hume commands a billion times more respect than McGuinness on the international stage. Do you seriously think that McGuinness would welcome the future King and Queen of England, William and Kate, to this country, for example? As commander in chief of the army, would he allow his troops (the legal irish army I mean) to parade at such an event?

Morlar

Master and commander wrote: »

they were the instigators of the violence, so they can't claim to have brought peace when they gave up their antics. They just can't. They have successfully deluded themselves on that one but they don't fool anyone else. No matter what they do or say they cannot change their past. They did what they did. And so macgiuness thus can't be called a peacemaker if he was the one that waged terrosm for so long.

In the context of Northern Ireland troubles, to take the view that the IRA caused the whole thing for no reason at all, or 'to ruin ulster' is moronic. There was a context and a reason why scores of young nationalists were driven down the road of extremism. The reasons were an institutionally discriminatory, violent and aggressive state. Civil rights demonstrators were first beaten off the streets, then when that didn't work they were shot off the streets. Take a look at their outrageous demands and tell me that the reaction they provoked was the product of a balanced reasonable society.

COYW wrote: »

Do you seriously think that McGuinness would welcome this future King and Queen of England, William and Kate, to this country for example?

I don't see that as an issue when he has already publicly stated that if elected he would be welcoming of british royalty. In fact if we are honest here I take the view that he would look forward to them visiting. The queen would be forced to shake his hand too don't forget.

Master and commander

Morlar wrote: »

In the context of Northern Ireland troubles, to take the view that the IRA caused the whole thing for no reason at all, or 'to ruin ulster' is moronic. There was a context and a reason why scores of young nationalists were driven down the road of extremism. The reasons were an institutionally discriminatory, violent and aggressive state. Civil rights demonstrators were first beaten off the streets, then when that didn't work they were shot off the streets. Take a look at their outrageous demands and tell me that the reaction they provoked was the product of a balanced reasonable society.




I don't see that as an issue when he has already publicly stated that if elected he would be welcoming of british royalty. In fact if we are honest here I take the view that he would look forward to them visiting. The queen would be forced to shake his hand too don't forget.

maybe if they were not such a pain in the arse in the first place, the state would not have had to discriminate agaisnt them. They created their own trouble. If they just got on with it and avoided friction. It'd all have been hunky dory.

Morlar

Master and commander wrote: »

maybe if they were not such a pain in the arse in the first place, the state would not have had to discriminate agaisnt them. They created their own trouble. If they just got on with it and avoided friction. It'd all have been hunky dory.

Uppity catholics looking for civil rights, what next ?

Imagine a state run on people with your outlook, armed and in total control, in power and with an absence of consequences for any wrongdoing on their part. You have a recipe for disaster and conflict.

Ignoring the context to that conflict, and only condemning in isolation those driven to extremism as a result, is almost equally corrupt in my opinion.

TheMilkyPirate

Master and commander wrote: »

maybe if they were not such a pain in the arse in the first place, the state would not have had to discriminate agaisnt them. They created their own trouble. If they just got on with it and avoided friction. It'd all have been hunky dory.

Wow.

johngalway

Morlar wrote: »

People have moved on.

What you refer to above would fall under the truth and reconcilliation comission which SF have been pushing for, no ?

Unless you meant . . 'all the gory details related to one side of the conflict only'

Morlar, read my post and stop inserting things that aren't there.

If you want to say that, then say it out of your own mouth.

Morlar

johngalway wrote: »

Morlar, read my post and stop inserting things that aren't there.

If you want to say that, then say it out of your own mouth.

Ok then I will ask you again.

What you refer to above would fall under the 'truth and reconcilliation comission' which SF (alone) have been pushing for, no ?

Tabnabs

This is an interesting topic OP, any chance you could stick to your own request and let the relevant people answer your original question?

johngalway

Morlar wrote: »

Ok then I will ask you again.

What you refer to above would fall under the 'truth and reconcilliation comission' which SF (alone) have been pushing for, no ?

My post is 100% crystal clear Morlar.

Morlar

Tabnabs wrote: »

This is an interesting topic OP, any chance you could stick to your own request and let the relevant people answer your original question?

I really don't understand your objection here.

Someone made a point (in response to the OP) about being unable to move forward without all the 'gory details' coming out.

I responded to that point that (to the best of my knowledge) if you want ALL the gory details to come out - that might fit with what SF have been looking for in the form of some sort of 'Truth and reconcilliation comission'. Not really seeing what I did wrong there.

BQQ

Master and commander wrote: »

i'm not saying norris is squeeky clean - he was wrong to do what he did, but it is nothing in comparrison to McGuinesses horrid and bloody past. Yet he is thrown out and McGuiness is embraced. Both should be out or both should be in. There is no consistency.

He wasn't thrown out, he pulled out. Now he's put himself back in.
Both are in (albeit one hasn't got nominated yet). There is consistency.

Master and commander wrote: »

The normans came in 1169, its not like they only arrived in 1905 FFS. They came to britain in 1066. Do the british go on about throwing them out like some here do over a 103 year difference in arrival times. No. Grow up ireland. Lets not forget that half of us are of norman decent anyway at this stage. Think about it. It all boils down to good old fashioned begrudgery IMO.

You do see the hypocrisy there, don't you? Try taking your own advice.

HellsAngel

Master and commander wrote: »

So david norris is pushed out and ridiculed for writing a letter for clemency because his partner was covicted of statutory rape.
Yet McGuiness was (debateably still is) a member of a terrorist group and admitted to being involved in many murders and terrorist acts, and they say he's a great fella and welcome him in?

WTF to that i say!

The man is a former terrorist and should be in jail. Period. It's an embarrasment to the state that he is being allowed to run. Its the equivalent to one of the 9/11 perpetrators being allowed run for president of the USA. disgraceful.

The man is now going around shouting his mouth off saying he would be president of ALL ireland. erm, no you won't be. Irish president has jurisdiction over the republic of ireland, absoluteley nothing whatsoever to do with the state in the north, nor should it have. We are quite happy as things are, no need for a (former) kalashnikov wielding nutter like him to go stirring up sh!te.

The prospect of him being in charge of the IDFs is scary really. Who knows what he and his SF henchmen will want to do, turn the Republic of Ireland into Europes North Korea or something. Plus, they [SF] are more or less COMMUNISTS after all. They want a socialist system.

Frankly in this day and age anyone proposing that the socialist sytem is viable has no credibility whatsoever imo. Anyway, them man is a potentially dangerous maniac. Don't give him any opportunity to become one i say!

Waht an embarrasment this whole fiasco is. so embarrased now.

EDIT: now they think hes great cos he "brought peace", well lets not forget it was him and his organisation that started and sustained war and terrorism on the island - so if they were the ones that started it, they absolutely cannot and have no right to claim to be the bringers of peace. Their whole attitude reads like a bad joke. A party with dormant desires for genocide has no business and is not wanted down here.

:rolleyes: Wannabe funny guy :rolleyes: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Nhead

Remy Disgusting Hawk wrote: »

Or how we all got on our moral high horses and asked the DUP etc to put the past behind them and move the peace process forward, but some can't find it in themselves to do likewise.

Or how we celebrate Mandela and his long walk to freedom but overlook the man's (and the ANC's) past.

In the same breath many members of the IRA can't forget what the British armed forces did and can't move past that either and going by boards the mere mention of DUP or the Orange Order drives certain posters into fits. These things are a two way street.

Talking about Dev and Fianna Fail, we should remember that he had to do a huge about turn
to enter the Dail and that there were worries about the party at the time. This was most
memorably expressed by Cumman na Gaedheal's famous 'shadow of a gunman' poster. When
Fianna Fail won the election one of the aides to Mulcahy said 'should we shoot them or salute
them?' to their credit the PDF listened to the democratic will of the people. What I am trying
to say is: Dev and his party entering into constitutional politics in the Free State at the time
wasn't as smooth as is sometimes presented.



The argument that the War of Independence and the conflict in NI are the same, is a much
longer argument as no two conflicts are the same and the methods used in both are different and anyway are outside the remit of the
OP's post.

To be honest,Morlar coming from an Army upbringing I can understand those in the PDF having qualms over MMcG it would be natural given the stance that the IRA would have taken on the PDF ie. Not the legitimate army or at best Free State Bastards as they were affectionately called. People are only human, and just like there was mistrust between parties and people in the north there will be mistrust in the Republic also. I do think, however, that the Army will again respect the people it serves if we do indeed elect a Sinn Fein president.

COYW

Morlar wrote: »

I don't see that as an issue when he has already publicly stated that if elected he would be welcoming of british royalty. In fact if we are honest here I take the view that he would look forward to them visiting. The queen would be forced to shake his hand too don't forget.

Ah, I get the picture now. So it's unacceptable for Queen Elizabeth II to visit this country when Mary McAleese is president and thus McGuinness' alliance behave like immature spoilt brats during the visit but if McGuinness is president, it's all good.

Also, are you also telling us that Martin McGuinness is more interested in petty-republican point scoring (they have to shake his hand) as president than being a respectable representative for the country.

Morlar

COYW wrote: »

Ah, I get the picture now. So it's unacceptable for Queen Elizabeth II to visit this country when Mary McAleese is president and thus McGuinness' alliance behave like immature spoilt brats during the visit but if McGuinness is president, it's all good.

Also, are you also telling us that Martin McGuinness is more interested in petty-republican point scoring (they have to shake his hand) as president than being a respectable representative for the country.

You are quoting a post where I say one thing, and then saying 'aha I see you are saying (insert something completely different).'

This is what I said on the non issue of meeting the british queen.

This bit here clarifies that it is a non issue in my view :

Morlar wrote: »

I don't see that as an issue when he has already publicly stated that if elected he would be welcoming of british royalty.

This bit here :

Morlar wrote: »

In fact if we are honest here I take the view that he would look forward to them visiting. The queen would be forced to shake his hand too don't forget.

Is pointing out a simple truth, which is that much as he may not personally like being required to shake her hand, you can be assured that she will not like to do so either.

If you want to rely on taking that offhand (pun intended) comment out of context and blow it out of all proportion then fire away. That is not the approach I have taken to this discussion.

johngalway

Morlar wrote: »

You are quoting a post where I say one thing, and then saying 'aha I see you are saying (insert something completely different).'

Sounds familiar.

Morlar

johngalway wrote: »

Sounds familiar.

Not at all, I asked you to clarify that your proposal was not a one-way street. In fact I have asked you several times now, the question of :

IF what you said is required (( 'the gory details out in the open' )) would be served best by a proposal to create some form of 'Peace and Reconcilliation Comission' ?

A proposal that to the best of my knowledge SF are the only political party to support. A question which you have failed to address.

johngalway

johngalway wrote: »

on all sides.

Bold for emphasis.

Morlar wrote: »

Unless you meant . . 'all the gory details related to one side of the conflict only'

Morlar wrote: »

Not at all

Yes I'm afraid Why you felt the desire to ask me a question, and more strangely keep asking it I'd clearly answered in my first post is something I don't understand.

Morlar

johngalway wrote: »

I don't believe anyone has or can move on until all the gory details have come out about things which have happened during "The Troubles", on all sides.

Anything else is glorified pretending IMV.

Let me explain this as I see it.

What you have said is :

SF can not stand for president until there is an open admission on all sides of the 'Gory details'.

Agreed ?

The closest thing to an 'open admission from all sides' of the 'Gory Details' is some form of 'truth and reconcilliation comission'.

Agreed ?

SF are the only party on these islands to support some form of 'Truth and Reconcilliation comission'.

Therefore according to you, SF should not stand for president because there is a pre-requisite, however SF are the only party on these islands to support that pre-requisite.

So that's why, in my view, your position on this makes no sense.

Morlar

For reference this is a 2008 press release :

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/13738

I have not been able to find any other parties north or south east or west who also support either this or something equivalent to this. Open to correction on that.

Sinn Féin Backs Independent International Truth Commission

September 28, 2008

In an article in this week's An Phoblacht Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams MP MLA has revealed that following a process of consultation and discussion, particularly with victims and victims groups, Sinn Féin has concluded that the best way forward on this issue is through the establishment of an Independent International Truth Commission.

The Sinn Féin President said:

"In the last few years these families have come together to organise and campaign for the truth. Campaigning groups like Relatives for Justice, Justice for the Forgotten and the Pat Finucane centre, are making similar demands. Also across this island and in Britain there are other families involved in campaigns. Some of these are victims of republican actions who are also seeking truth.

The issue of state killings and of collusion - which was an administrative practice and part of the British government's strategy - must also be dealt with.

There is understandable concern about the British governments commitment to a truth recovery process. Their actions in refusing to co-operate with the Barron Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; their refusal to hand over files in relation to the killing of Pat Finucane and others; and their wilful stalling and obstruction of the Saville Inquiry, are all evidence of an unwillingness on the part of the British government, and its military and intelligence establishment, to end the cover ups and to take responsibility for their actions during the conflict.

Brushing it under the carpet, revising our history to exorcise the role of the British state in fomenting and prolonging conflict in our country, is in no ones interest - especially the families.

Republicans have clearly acknowledged many times the hurt they inflicted during the conflict. I have expressed my personal and sincere regret and apologised for that hurt. The IRA has also acknowledged what it has done. That is the right and proper thing to do. The IRA has apologised to all those non-combatants it killed or injured and their families.

For our part Sinn Féin is very mindful of all of the difficulties involved in truth recovery, particularly for victims and their families. But we believe that as society seeks to leave conflict behind and to move forward there is a requirement that all of us address the tragic human consequences of the past.

Sinn Féin supports all of the families in their efforts to achieve truth. In 2003 Sinn Féin published a discussion document on "Truth". Its purpose was to set out our view of the timing and purpose of a truth recovery process and the nature and form of such
a process.

In this spirit Sinn Fein has put forward principles which we believe should underpin any effective truth recovery process. The principles we identified are:

All processes should be victim-centred and deal with victims on an all-Ireland basis;
Full co-operation by all relevant parties is essential to the success of any commission;
There should be no hierarchy of victims;
All processes should be politically neutral;
Any future panel should be international and independent;
One of the purposes of any future panel/commission should be to examine the 'causes, nature and extent' of the conflict;
An objective of any process should be healing - both for direct victims and for society in general;
A common aim should be to enable society to build the peace;
Reconciliation should be the core aim of any truth process; and Respect and generosity should inform the parties seeking to reach agreement.

Those of us charged with political responsibility must agree and deliver a process that is meaningful and substantive. There is an onus on all political leaders to promote this. This includes the Irish government which has a constitutional, legal and moral responsibility to actively promote this course of action.


That means thinking beyond any sectarian, sectional, party political or self interest. So, a truth process to deal with the war in Ireland must be victim centred and inform future generations of the lessons from our conflict.

It must be a process that can deliver the truth to bereaved families as a result of independent investigation.

And it must analyse the policies and practices that sustained and fuelled the conflict.

Being victim centred means that it must embrace all the victims, all the protagonists, whether they live in Ireland or England or elsewhere.

A truth process must reach out to these people.

One way of achieving an independent process is to have an international inquiry. The United Nations or another reputable agency could be involved. In Ireland many of the victims groups have been looking at the possibility of establishing an Independent
International Truth Commission.

Sinn Fein has now met many of these groups and we have concluded that the establishment of an Independent International Truth Commission is the best way of taking this issue forward.

Key to the success of such a Commission is the full co-operation by all relevant parties. And clearly the willingness of individuals to voluntarily participate will be greatly enhanced if the Commission is seen to be independent, have an international dimension and be fair and equitable.

Of course, it won't be easy. There are vested groups who will not want the truth; and who will oppose the creation of a meaningful truth recovery process. So this is going to be an immensely difficult and painful process and experience. It must therefore be
conducted in a sensitive and generous way.

Building a united harmonious society demands that these difficult issues are dealt with in an inclusive way as a necessary part of putting the past behind us. Looking after victims and victims' families and survivors is a significant and important part of this." ENDS

johngalway

johngalway wrote: »

I don't believe anyone has or can move on until all the gory details have come out about things which have happened during "The Troubles", on all sides.

Anything else is glorified pretending IMV.

Morlar wrote: »

Let me explain this as I see it.

What you have said is :

SF can not stand for president until there is an open admission on all sides of the 'Gory details'.

Agreed ?

The closest thing to an 'open admission from all sides' of the 'Gory Details' is some form of 'truth and reconcilliation comission'.

Agreed ?

SF are the only party on these islands to support some form of 'Truth and Reconcilliation comission'.

Therefore according to you, SF should not stand for president because there is a pre-requisite, however SF are the only party on these islands to support that pre-requisite.

So that's why, in my view, your position on this makes no sense.

Morlar wrote: »

Agreed ?

No

Anyone can stand for nomination, anyone can stand for election if they get the required support.

What I said is that "moving on" requires honest information given to the public by, let me emphasise this bit again, ALL sides. Only then can it be said that people have moved on. Until that time, there are lots of outstanding issues unresolved on ALL sides.

Morlar wrote: »

Agreed ?

Calling for, and doing, are two very different things. Be the better/bigger side and get on with it. Talk is cheap.

Morlar wrote: »

Therefore according to you, SF should not stand for president because there is a pre-requisite, however SF are the only party on these islands to support that pre-requisite.

No

According to me Martin is pretending to be a "uniter", trying to tell the meeja the questions he can and can't be asked. Saying how he should be judged on the past two decades of his life, hmmm, why is that Martin? Very democratic that.

He's doing more pretend "uniting" by his "westbrit" comments today, just shows his tribalism alive and well inside, also while the term doesn't describe me, I find it derogatory and unfit to be used by someone running for the office of President.

That just shows how until the full truths of what went on during that dirty war come out people can't be painted with a wide all encompassing brush stroke of having "moved on", which is a cosy, handy and timely fit for some, politically.

None of the above stops him running for the office, nor should it. But, I never objected to him doing so, as you seemed to think I did

But it would help unite people if he'd stop pretending and started doing as his party is advising, a bit of truth, and a bit of reconciliation.

GarryJ

Master and commander wrote: »

... well lets not forget it was him and his organisation that started and sustained war and terrorism on the island - so if they were the ones that started it, they absolutely cannot and have no right to claim to be the bringers of peace...

Really? Are you joking?

Show me the history book that details the time the Irish marched over to britian, forced the peace loving locals to invade Ireland at gun point, etc...

I won't be voting for martin McGuinness, but statements like that almost puts me in the mind to do so.

Morlar

johngalway wrote: »

What I said is that "moving on" requires honest information given to the public by, let me emphasise this bit again, ALL sides. Only then can it be said that people have moved on. Until that time, there are lots of outstanding issues unresolved on ALL sides.

The closest thing to what you are describing is this.

johngalway wrote: »

Calling for, and doing, are two very different things. Be the better/bigger side and get on with it. Talk is cheap.

You seem to suggest that one side (ie Republicans) should come forward with all the gory details without any similar response from ANY other side in the conflict ?

Can you clarify that this is now your position ?

That would categorically NOT fit the 'all sides' requirement then would it ?

Otherwise, without ALL Sides agreement it is simply not possible for SF to establish a UN comission for Truth along these kind of reasonable considered lines :

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/13738

My view is that agreement from ALL other parties to the conflict is a requirement. So far support for this is limited to a single political party. To be honest with you I do not know what FG/Labour would have to lose in this, I could understand what the British Govt may stand to lose, also reluctance among UVF/UDV/UFF etc is understandable, however with Unionist party support I don't see that as an unsurmountable challenge.

Geekness1234

Morphéus wrote: »

i hope he doesn't get in.

he is a terrorist.

he still hasn't admitted his role in the murders that took place during the terrorist attacks both up north and down here and I have no respect for him or his party. but that's just me. I'm sure there are plenty of people here with different views.

Will he be able to admit there is only one Oglaigh Na h'Eireann when he comes down looking for votes.

He is still a member of a secret society.

There is much to make me not want his ilk in office.

Damn Right!