Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

Sorry, but i have to call BOLLOCKS on the above.

SF did not initiate the Peace Process.

SF did initiate the current peace process And have played a pivotal role in supporting and maintaining it for approx 20 yrs.

The IRA called a unilateral ceasefire which was directly prompted by and driven by SF.

None of sectarian loyalist paramilitaries involved (or for that matter the INLA) called a ceasefire until years AFTER the SF sponsored moves towards peace. That may not fit with your version of who started what when but it is the case.

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

SF did initiate the current peace process And have played a pivotal role in supporting and maintaining it for approx 20 yrs.

The IRA called a unilateral ceasefire which was directly prompted by and driven by SF.

None of sectarian loyalist paramilitaries involved (or for that matter the INLA) called a ceasefire until years AFTER the SF sponsored moves towards peace. That may not fit with your version of who started what when but it is the case.

March 20th 1993, Warrington bombings which killed 3 year old Jonathan ball and mortally injured 12 year old Tim Parry, who's parents had to turn off his life support machine 5 days later.

Widespread protests across Great Britain and Ireland.
Irish government passes laws making for easier extradition between the Republic of Ireland and The United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland.
December 1993, The Downing Street Declaration.

August 1994 First IRA ceasefire.




From March 1993 the will of the people became a palpable force, both legitimate governments recognised this, and grasped the opportunity that had been given where people were no longer too afraid of the bully boys and their tactics to stand up for what they knew was right.

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

March 20th 1993, Warrington bombings which killed 3 year old Jonathan ball and mortally injured 12 year old Tim Parry, who's parents had to turn off his life support machine 5 days later.

Widespread protests across Great Britain and Ireland.
Irish government passes laws making for easier extradition between the Republic of Ireland and The United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland.
December 1993, The Downing Street Declaration.

August 1994 First IRA ceasefire.

From March 1993 the will of the people became a palpable force, both legitimate governments recognised this, and grasped the opportunity that had been given where people were no longer too afraid of the bully boys and their tactics to stand up for what they knew was right.

Children were killed and maimed in that conflict. Many at the hands of British army soldiers let's not forget going back years and years.

The IRA announced a ceasefire which was, whether you like it or not, the result of years of work in the SF & republican circles to move towards a path of peace and politics.

It was the result of a change in strategy which had been worked on for years before. No single event such as warrington 'forced the IRA to a ceasefire' as you would have us believe. Nor was it due to 'overwhelming public pressure'. That is a nonsense version of the history of this conflict.

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

Children were killed and maimed in that conflict. Many at the hands of British army soldiers let's not forget going back years and years.

The IRA announced a ceasefire which was, whether you like it or not, the result of years of work in the SF & republican circles to move towards a path of peace and politics.

It was the result of a change in strategy which had been worked on for years before. No single event such as warrington 'forced the IRA to a ceasefire' as you would have us believe. Nor was it due to 'overwhelming public pressure'. That is a nonsense version of the history of this conflict.

You just keep looking through your shamrock tinted balaclava there Morlar.

The fact is that for the first time there was sustained pressure from the public to bring an end to this conflict. And things moved pretty bloody quickly, to the IRA declaring a ceasefire just over a year later.

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

The fact is that for the first time there was sustained pressure from the public to bring an end to this conflict. And things moved pretty bloody quickly, to the IRA declaring a ceasefire just over a year later.

That is simply wrong. There was a constant ebb and flow of public outrage and 'this surely is the last straw' kinds of thinking which in the long run floundered.

There were prolific peace movements at every point throughout the 70's into the 80's also. Most famously the 'peace women/peace people', who won a nobel peace prize in 1976. Can you even (without checking) remember their names ?

There were also fairly regular ceasefires too - every christmas not ot mention the periodically longer ceasefires (while simultaneously behind the scenes negotiations achieved little).

cyrusdvirus

Morlar wrote: »

That is simply wrong. There was a constant ebb and flow of public outrage and 'this surely is the last straw' kinds of thinking which in the long run floundered.

There were prolific peace movements at every point throughout the 70's into the 80's also. Most famously the 'peace women/peace people', who won a nobel peace prize in 1976. Can you even (without checking) remember their names ?

No, I can't.

In my defence i was only 1 year old at that time though!

The 'This is the last straw' thinking did NOT flounder though. It was public pressure that allowed the Irish Government bring in the laws easing the restrictions on extradition. This removed a lot of the 'security' around some of the bolt hole options that the terrorists had used over the years.

This pressure was IMO as a direct result of the Warrington bombings. The public were no longer willing to see kids get killed in 'their' name. You are obviously a staunch republican, I am obviously not. I cannot condone what ANY of the republican terrorist groups did in the period from 1969. In some cases the targets would have been seen as a 'legitimate' target, that doesn't make it right though.

But killing someone because of their religion? Blowing a little boy up as a political statement? That's just plain wrong!
The

Wolfe Tone

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/martin-mcguinness-only-one-army-in-ireland-16056605.html#ixzz1ZKfFfDfV

neil_hosey

people talk about him being a member of the PIRA and that being the reason why they dont support him. The thing is though, in NI in the 1970, most young men in the certain parts of west belfast and derry joined up. They had very little other option.

The hypocrits on here who criticise him without even having a shred of understanding for what it was like growing up in the bogside or belfast in the 60's and 70's are a joke..

cyrusdvirus

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/martin-mcguinness-only-one-army-in-ireland-16056605.html#ixzz1ZKfFfDfV

I guess that means we can close the thread then!!

Dyr

gatecrash wrote: »

No, I can't.

In my defence i was only 1 year old at that time though!

The 'This is the last straw' thinking did NOT flounder though. It was public pressure that allowed the Irish Government bring in the laws easing the restrictions on extradition. This removed a lot of the 'security' around some of the bolt hole options that the terrorists had used over the years.

This pressure was IMO as a direct result of the Warrington bombings. The public were no longer willing to see kids get killed in 'their' name. You are obviously a staunch republican, I am obviously not. I cannot condone what ANY of the republican terrorist groups did in the period from 1969. In some cases the targets would have been seen as a 'legitimate' target, that doesn't make it right though.

But killing someone because of their religion? Blowing a little boy up as a political statement? That's just plain wrong!
The

Are you old enough to remember when the government started extraditing people? Despite having the media onside it did not go down well with people

cyrusdvirus

Bambi wrote: »

Are you old enough to remember when the government started extraditing people? Despite having the media onside it did not go down well with people

Yes, I am. And after 1993 they went a lot easier.

Morlar

gatecrash wrote: »

No, I can't.

Fair enough.

The fact is that there were many times throughout that conflict when people who normally ignored atrocities on all sides were compelled to take a closer look for one reason or another. Then, suddenly realising that innocent people were being killed cried out for an immediate end.

Usually after big publicity events.

I can recall after enniskillen the same, also after the post-milltown 'b.a. corporals being dragged out of their cars' killings. People who were normally switched off to the conlict, confronted with media images again cryed out for an end to the conflict. This didn't happen so much after the milltown mourners had been bombed and shot a few days before however as that recieved less media play at the time.

All those efforts floundered. When the queens horses were blown to bits - the same level of outrage and condemnation resulted and achieved . . . .nothing whatsoever.

Republicans were not the only party to the conflict. ALL sides committed atrocities. Loyalists largely commited purely sectarian killings, on and off the books, with state collusion and independently.

People were also outraged at those events too and likewise all the protests and condemnation achieved nothing.

Protests against the british army after bloody sunday or this shooting or that one also achieved nothing. Widespread CND Style 'Troops out' movements in the UK also achieved nothing.

So saying this conflict came to an end as a result of 'people power forcing the IRA to announce ceasefire & disarmament' is totally simplistic and overly convenient to me.

You can look back and string any series of events into a sequence and then say there is a direct causal link from this one to that one resulting in whatever -it doesn't make it correct. It's just wishful thinking that suits your own political viewpoint.

gatecrash wrote: »

You are obviously a staunch republican, I am obviously not. I cannot condone what ANY of the republican terrorist groups did in the period from 1969. In some cases the targets would have been seen as a 'legitimate' target, that doesn't make it right though.

But killing someone because of their religion? Blowing a little boy up as a political statement? That's just plain wrong!
The

The main sectarian killings were from Loyalist side of the fence. Republican mythology has always had protestant heroes, and there is an emphasis on anti-sectarianism, unlike the loyalist mythology which did not have catholic heroes. Don't forget the Orange Order were widely seen as anti-catholic. In fact one of their members was just a few months ago reprimanded for simply attending a catholic funeral.

Republicans had security services, UDR, British army, RUC etc as visible targets, the loyalists did not have visible targets. They did not have the intelligence on their own to know who was and who was not involved and for a large part loyalists used sectarian terror and targetted random catholics north and south. Many of whom were not just killed but gruesomely tortured first. Obviously this evolved into collusion and information being passed from the security services which then led to targetting of SF members and republicans but this was not always the case.

FYI - you referred to me as a 'staunch republican', far as I can see staunch republicans do not support Martin McGuinness. In fact there was a recent article which hinted ata whole host of things McGuinness is suspected of. E.g. that the Special branch had been involved in lifting SF ard fheis attendees who were against the adams/mcguinness 'doves', also alleged that McGuinness may have been involved in collusion with the british army to have hardline republicans who stood in the way of the peace process killed. So my point is that staunch republicans would not necessarily be pro-McGuinness, many probably view him as a traitor and would like to see him killed.

Rolotomassie

atleast he might get ye out doing something other than guarding the banks money or sitting in a barricks all day scratching your ass

the_syco

HellsAngel wrote: »

I must say we've had some of the usual responces for an ' Irish ' military forum The great 'crime' of MMcG and other young men who watched the RUC and Paisleyite mobs trying to burn down their houses and murder their neighbours is that they

would pop down to ireland to rob the post offices, kill Gardai and anyone who got in their way.

Dyr

gatecrash wrote: »

Yes, I am. And after 1993 they went a lot easier.

Remember McGlinchey being handed over? Ellis? The release of the Birmingham six and Guildford four?

You have some funny memories from a land that existed only in a cruise o'brein text book

Morlar

the_syco wrote: »

would pop down to ireland to rob the post offices, kill Gardai and anyone who got in their way.

It might be a useful exercise to take the numbers of Gardai killed by the IRA throughout the troubles and compare that to the numbers of catholics killed and maimed by the british army, RUC/UDR & loyalist paramilitaries. You could also do the same with the numbers of innocent protestants killed.

Each is monumental in scale to the families involved however the point is that there is a context and scale to all of this. Focusing solely or disproportionately on one vicitm or one set of victims to the detriment of the vastly superior numbers of other victims is not a constructive approach. I think it can lead to a kind of one dimensional view of the entire situation.

Morlar

This entire thread has been edged further and further from the original purpose. If the mods want to move it or lock it then fire away. Of the handful of serving/former personnel who expressed a viewpoint - cheers. I think it was interesting to see some different perspectives on this subject as there has been a bit of a national silence about it in recent years (comparatively speaking - considering the scope and scale of the thing and how big a factor of all of our lives it was).

My vote is going to M.McGuinness, have to say this is mainly strategic and largely due to the calibre of the other candidates & with an eye toward the upcoming 1916 & related Centenary events.

Mary Davis seems like your average well connected quango hopper, Gallagher is a wasted vote, Dana seems like a nice person but not intellectually capable of the role. Mitchell is too sly & disingenous for my money and Higgins is a raving maniac beneath the surface imo. Norris is a grotesque option in my honest opinion. I can see why people have reservations about M.Mcg but my take on that is that he is not a perfect option but out of the rest of them he is the best option & his last 20 yrs record of peacemaking outweighs all other candidates collective contributions to this island by a wide margin.

cyrusdvirus

Bambi wrote: »

Remember McGlinchey being handed over? Ellis? The release of the Birmingham six and Guildford four?

You have some funny memories from a land that existed only in a cruise o'brein text book

huh??

What point could you POSSIBLY be trying to make??

Either way, it's waaaaay OT from the thread.

alanmcqueen

"Mary Davis seems like your average well connected quango hopper"

Brilliant! LOL:D

shaneybaby

Morlar wrote: »

My vote is going to M.McGuinness, have to say this is mainly strategic and largely due to the calibre of the other candidates & with an eye toward the upcoming 1916 & related Centenary events.

strategic? in that the other candidates will not be able to stand on a podium and shake hands and read a well rehearsed speech as well as Mr McGuinness?
You gota be kidding me in fairness. Even Dana was standing in front of crowds before Mr McGuinness was outa pointing water pistols.

Morlar

shaneybaby wrote: »

strategic? in that the other candidates will not be able to stand on a podium and shake hands and read a well rehearsed speech as well as Mr McGuinness?
You gota be kidding me in fairness. Even Dana was standing in front of crowds before Mr McGuinness was outa pointing water pistols.

No, I am not kidding you & have given my reasons why.

HellsAngel

gatecrash wrote: »

Yeah, because when i said most of his (McGuinness') life i actually meant the year and a bit that the civil war lasted.

Oh so now the goal posts have been moved again !!! The fact that the IRA with Dev as it's head killed vastly more of the state's forces in the Civil War is now somehow ok because it lasted about a year but MMcG who fought the RUC, Brits and loyalists from the Bogside is unacceptable !!!!!

The Gay Mitchell battalion is certainly in full swing now

the_syco

Morlar wrote: »

It might be a useful exercise to take the numbers of Gardai killed by the IRA throughout the troubles and compare that to the numbers of catholics killed and maimed by the british army, RUC/UDR & loyalist paramilitaries. You could also do the same with the numbers of innocent protestants killed.

My point was that their war was with the British government, yet they still felt the need to come down South for "fund-raising" activities. Whilst fighting for their "Republican cause" they attacked police from the Republic of Ireland.

But I'm sure the bean counter in charge was unaware of these robberies. We'll just put it in what he's also unaware of, such as any abductions, killings, etc, shall we?

PeterIanStaker

Presidential candidate Martin McGuinness was confronted during his canvas in Athlone this afternoon by the son of a member of the Irish Army who was killed in an incident after the kidnap of Don Tidey in Ballinamore in 1983.

David Kelly, whose 35-year-old father Paddy was shot dead, called on Mr McGuinness to name those responsible.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1010/president.html

laoch na mona

he wouldn't really be in charge its a ceremonial role so its a non debate

xflyer

Without seeming to defend Martin McGuinness, I doubt if he knows for sure who actually shot David Kelly's Father. Indeed I am friends with one of the IRA kidnappers and he described the chaos of that moment. Indeed it's possible the killer himself doesn't know for sure. In fact I don't think anyone's name has ever been put forward for the fatal shot.

On the other hand it's now generally accepted that the Garda was killed by 'friendly fire'.

A nasty little part of the IRA's dirty war.

Morpheus

why did they fire on state forces anyway? because they're terrorist scum. enough said.

gizmo555

xflyer wrote: »

On the other hand it's now generally accepted that the Garda was killed by 'friendly fire'.

Generally accepted by whom and on what evidence?

Doesn't tally with this eye witness and forensic evidence from the trial of Brendan McFarlane:

Corporal Patrick Shine said he heard a burst of gunfire and saw Private Kelly fall backwards against the trees and as his head went back he saw blood on his neck.

He dived for cover and he heard Private Kelly calling "Paddy". He then heard a loud explosion, which sounded like a hand grenade, and he put his hands over his head. A gunman then appeared with his rifle pointed at him and told him to drop his own rifle.

"I thought the people were desperate enough to get out that they would have shot me as well,'' he said . . .

The court heard gardai found three rifles, a Steyr submachinegun and parts of a Soviet-made fragmentation grenade in the woods, but never recovered the automatic weapons fired at Private Kelly and recruit garda Gary Sheehan, who also died . . .

Retired Detective Sergeant Patrick Ennis, of the Garda Ballistics Section, said he was involved over an eight-day period in the examination of the scene at Derrada Wood.

He examined three rifles and a submachine gun found in the woods and a number of spent cartridges. Some of the spent cartridges came from a Heckler and Koch automatic weapon and some from an AK-47 style assault rifle, neither of which were Irish Army issue weapons. Neither the Heckler and Koch or the AK-47 were recovered by gardai, he said.

Det Sgt Ennis told the court he had come to the conclusion that the Heckler and Koch and AK-47 weapons were fired from a location between the makeshift tent used by the kidnap gang and where the bodies of Private Kelly and Sheehan were located . . .

Dyr

Generally speaking they find out who was shot by what (and who) when they take the bullets out of the corpses..if indeed there are bullets in them. I don't believe that information was ever released in this case, which gives rise to the doubts around who exactly fired on the men who died.

Personally, the fact that so many official references describe the individuals as being killed during a shoot out raises doubts in my mind that they could well have been shot by friendlies

Correct me if I'm but did'nt the gardai and army mistakenly also open up on a car with civilians in it that day?

gizmo555

Bambi wrote: »

Generally speaking they find out who was shot by what (and who) when they take the bullets out of the corpses..if indeed there are bullets in them. I don't believe that information was ever released in this case, which gives rise to the doubts around who exactly fired on the men who died.

Personally, the fact that so many official references describe the individuals as being killed during a shoot out raises doubts in my mind that they could well have been shot by friendlies

There's a big difference between your personally having doubts and xflyer's assertion that it is "generally accepted" that these two deaths were the result of friendly fire. The evidence in the piece linked to is that they were shot at from in front and that later examination of the scene established that shots were fired from non-Garda, non-Army weapons from a spot in front of where the men fell. Immediately after the shootings, Kelly and Sheehan's comrades were confronted at gunpoint by IRA members. That'll do me, on the balance of probabilities.

In any event, the firefight in which they were killed began when the IRA members involved opened fire without warning on Garda and Army personnel as they closed in on their position. Either way, therefore, the IRA bore 100% responsibility for the deaths of Pte Kelly and Gda Sheehan.