McGuinness Criticism Justified?

Ald

Just scanning through the headlines in the Irish Independent today and two articles grabbed my attention...

1. Bloody Sunday: Families of victims to be paid compensation after 40 years
2. Race for the áras: Gay Byrne calls presidential candidate McGuinness a 'consistent liar'

It makes me wonder if the media in this country lack compassion on the issue of McGuinness's presidency run. Now, let me clarify that I in no way condone the activities of the troubles and I feel whole heartedly for the victims of both sides. But, as I see it I can't help feel that Mr. McGuinness's road in life was a product of British policy at the time. Ask youself this: If your friends were being maimed and murdered around you what would you do? Are the Irish media, including RTé from what I've heard from Pat Kenny and Joe Duffy lately, just an arm of the political parties that feel very threatened by McGuinness at the moment?

I think it's a bit rich for Gay Byrne to call McGuinness a 'gunman' and 'liar'. He put his flag to the mast as a F.F. man. I could never imagine a F.F. man supporting a S.F. candidate in any way, both parties seeking the Republican vote afterall. I choose not to listen to his progaganda given what his party did to this country.

McDowell's point, on Frontline, refers to defiance of the Irish Army but was it not the Irish Army that stood on the Derry border prepped to go North if given the instruction? But they never crossed that border. Was that a failing on our part and would the I.R.A. have ever felt a compulsion to act in the way they did had the nationalist community up North have had better protection?

Now, I see all the councils around the country having emergency meetings to endorse Norris. I have no doubt Norris will get the nod. But it makes me wonder if that's an anti-McGuinness endorsement rather than pro-Norris...

Personally, I'll wait to hear what Mr. McGuinness has to say and what he can bring to us. But, I will seriously consider giving my vote to him.

KeithAFC

McDowell's point, on Frontline, refers to defiance of the Irish Army but was it not the Irish Army that stood on the Derry border prepped to go North if given the instruction?

National suicide you mean? That would have just been insane.

And I agree with his comments on Mcguinness and Gerry Adams. They are both liars.

fred252

of course he's a liar, he's a politician

Ald

KeithAFC wrote: »

National suicide you mean? That would have just been insane.

I agree, we could never have taken on the barbarians that were apologised for last year by the British P.M.

That's not the issue. I'm asking why there is a lack of compassion for the complexity of the situation. It seems party loyalties are allowed fester in areas of the media that should be sterile - chair persons on the likes of Frontline and LiveLine for instance... Makes me wonder about journalistic professionalism in this country...

KeithAFC

Ald wrote: »

I agree, we could never have taken on the barbarians that were apologised for last year by the British P.M.

That's not the issue. I'm asking why there is a lack of compassion for the complexity of the situation. It seems party loyalties are allowed fester in areas of the media that should be sterile - chair persons on the likes of Frontline and LiveLine for instance... Makes me wonder about journalistic professionalism in this country...

The Irish Army invading Northern Ireland would not just be in a fight with the British Army but also the UVF and bombs and all sorts going off. Would have been suicide. Probably would have had more Dublin and Monaghan type bombings.

I don't see the big deal about this. What exactly is it you are against? The media are obviously going to ask these questions. And of course Martin Mcguinness is going to be asked questions about his past. The rest of them are saints compared to Martin Mcguinness in terms of his past.

Plus his past will sell more papers compared to what he has done in recent years.

Liam Byrne

Ald wrote: »

But, as I see it I can't help feel that Mr. McGuinness's road in life was a product of British policy at the time. Ask youself this: If your friends were being maimed and murdered around you what would you do?

I might go after whoever was maiming and murdering them, but I wouldn't murder uninvolved innocent third parties. THAT is where most people's issue with McGuinness & Co lies, but for some reason his / their supporters just gloss over that fact and bring it up as if he went after those persecuting him.

Ald wrote: »

Are the Irish media, including RTé from what I've heard from Pat Kenny and Joe Duffy lately, just an arm of the political parties that feel very threatened by McGuinness at the moment?

No. See above.

Ald wrote: »

I think it's a bit rich for Gay Byrne to call McGuinness a 'gunman' and 'liar'. He put his flag to the mast as a F.F. man. I could never imagine a F.F. man supporting a S.F. candidate in any way, both parties seeking the Republican vote afterall. I choose not to listen to his progaganda given what his party did to this country.

If I rape someone and you murder someone, it doesn't change the fact that you've murdered them.

Yes, there's a typical "But, but, but, look what they did and got away with" attitude in Ireland in general (asking cops who stop you while drunk why they're not out catching "real" criminals, etc) but at the end of the day we are all responsible for our own choices and actions, and if we're judged by those without people making extra stuff up, then we can have no complaints.

Mucco

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Irish Army invading Northern Ireland would not just be in a fight with the British Army....

....but also with the rest of NATO.

Ald

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I might go after whoever was maiming and murdering them, but I wouldn't murder uninvolved innocent third parties. THAT is where most people's issue with McGuinness & Co lies, but for some reason his / their supporters just gloss over that fact and bring it up as if he went after those persecuting him.

Point taken and I agree.

Where are the files on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings so? Why were the apologies so late coming for those in the North of Ireland? What about the British treatment of innocent third parties? Like I said it's complex and that's not being portrayed in the media...

Is Sinn Féin not looking to set up some sort of Truth Commission to disclose information on the Troubles?

I hate to sound like a S.F. head. I'm not. I vote for whatever policies grab my attention at any time. But I really hate progaganda feeds. I don't buy them and I get a gut feeling that's what is happening on this issue.

Lately, we welcomed the British government head to Ireland but she is, not directly I know, responsible for innocents not just here but all over the world. I think it's two faced if we don't actually welcome somebody that has changed their ways and now seeks peace. Remember, the Queen's army is still killing innocents in places they say their enemies are.

Just because one side is a government and one is a 'terrorist' organisation does not make the government automatically right and righteous in every instance.

Ald

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Irish Army invading Northern Ireland would not just be in a fight with the British Army but also the UVF and bombs and all sorts going off.

For all intense purposes they were all the one at that time.

Plus his past will sell more papers compared to what he has done in recent years.

You said it. It's a big shame...

KeithAFC

Ald wrote: »

For all intense purposes they were all the one at that time.



You said it. It's a big shame...

Which time line? Many got arrested by the British Army.

And it might be a big shame for you but Martin Mcguinness has to still tell us what he did do in the PIRA.

HellsAngel

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Irish Army invading Northern Ireland would not just be in a fight with the British Army but also the UVF and bombs and all sorts going off. Would have been suicide. Probably would have had more Dublin and Monaghan type bombings.

If the Irish army had been sent in world opinion and especially American would have been totally supportive of Ireland as it would have been seen as coming to the aid of the beleaguered Catholic population, it would certainly not have been seen as an "invasion". And the NI statelet wasn't and still isn't very populiar with the average English person, they'd rather be rid of it.

Lynch and FF didn't send the army in because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt - despite their rethoric for 5 decades regarding a United Ireland - as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their profitable political life and little fiefdoms distrubed in anyway. These quislings have absolutely not the slightest care or concern for the ordinary people of Ireland, we seen it in 1969 and we are now seeing it again with NAMA etc as they ditch the country so to protect themselves and their corrupt cronies at the expense of everyone else.

CucaFace

Ald i understand your point on certain people's view McGiuness and their own political conections but yo have to see that at the very core here is that this guy was invloved in murder and how the hell could we put this guy in as president as this country?

What kind of image would this send out? Think of the great people who have held this job as of late and the great work they have done and now at a time when we really need a better image (IMO) it would just be shocking to put McGuiness in as president.

It also shows how deluded Sinn Fein really are if they can't als see this.

HellsAngel

CucaFace wrote: »

Ald i understand your point on certain people's view McGiuness and their own political conections but yo have to see that at the very core here is that this guy was invloved in murder and how the hell could we put this guy in as president as this country?

What kind of image would this send out? Think of the great people who have held this job as of late and the great work they have done and now at a time when we really need a better image (IMO) it would just be shocking to put McGuiness in as president.

It also shows how deluded Sinn Fein really are if they can't als see this.

Well Dev was also "invloved in murder" as you put it and he made the Pres. so I cann't see the sky falling in if MMcG gets it Blue collar guy from the Bogside, will be populiar with the working class vote, many of whom will be sympathetic to the fact that given the circumstances of 50 years of unionist gross secterianism and then the Brits came in and you had Bloody Sunday etc, it's not surprising that many young men on both sides of the border joined the IRA even if they mightn't agree with some of their actions.

Appearently MMcG is getting quite a lot of curiosity in the international media, former IRA man turned statesman sort of thing. Easy to see why.

woodoo

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Irish Army invading Northern Ireland would not just be in a fight with the British Army but also the UVF and bombs and all sorts going off. Would have been suicide. Probably would have had more Dublin and Monaghan type bombings..

The british army would have been far too powerful for the irish one. But there would have been no fear of the UVF. It would have been like a tank and a wasp coming. With the UVF being the wasp realtively speaking.

Latchy

HellsAngel wrote: »

If the Irish army had been sent in world opinion and especially American would have been totally supportive of Ireland as it would have been seen as coming to the aid of the beleaguered Catholic population, it would certainly not have been seen as an "invasion". And the NI statelet wasn't and still isn't very populiar with the average English person, they'd rather be rid of it.

Lynch and FF didn't send the army in because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt - despite their rethoric for 5 decades regarding a United Ireland - as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their profitable political life and little fiefdoms distrubed in anyway. These quislings have absolutely not the slightest care or concern for the ordinary people of Ireland, we seen it in 1969 and we are now seeing it again with NAMA etc as they ditch the country so to protect themselves and their corrupt cronies at the expense of everyone else.

^ In a nutshell yes and they didn't have the balls to go ahead with it anyway .

I do agree with Gay Byrne when he says quote '' Mr McGuinness, who is a 'clever operator'and would use 'weasel words' during the campaign to 'wriggle' out of being asked tough questions '' . At the other end of the spectrum you have Dana who's from the same neck of the woods as McGuinness but shouldn't get the job either ,for entirely different reasons .

Conall Cernach

It must be remembered by all those who like to criticise him for his "violent" past that he did not start the Provos (he was an Official/Sticky like many of the current Labour party) but he certainly finished them. Without his input the Provos would still be going strong.

mike65

This hare already set running here

Nuttzz

Praising Mcguinesses statesmanship is bit like praising a child abuser hasnt hurt kids in years. Sure they have seen the error of their ways but that doesnt mean they should be trusted....

HellsAngel

Nuttzz wrote: »

Praising Mcguinesses statesmanship is bit like praising a child abuser hasnt hurt kids in years. Sure they have seen the error of their ways but that doesnt mean they should be trusted....

So Dev, Collins etc can be equated to child abusers and were unreformable

Nuttzz

HellsAngel wrote: »

So Dev, Collins etc can be equated to child abusers and were unreformable

The british should have done us a favour and popped dev as well in 1916

sbsquarepants

Gay Byrne?
I mean come on would you, if the british government, the very people McGuinness was fighting against, have since seen fit to recognise him as and deal with him as a legitimate politician/statesman/diplomat - use whatever term you want, then who the hell is gay byrne to say otherwise.
I bet this same Gay Byrne would have drooled over Nelson Mandella, if he could have got him as a guest on his god awful show.
A lot of politicians have shady backgrounds, or at least military backgrounds, especially in conflict zones - if you want to end a war you HAVE to speak to the combatants - there's very little to be achieved speaking to county coucilors, senators or bloody eurovision contestants!
America for example, has no problem whatsover voting for their war heroes, military leaders and so on. Why should Ireland?

Manach

Whilst I will not be voting for Mr. McGuinness, it would be based on the economic policy of SF and not for his past record. He was a product of an environment that had oppressed his people for decades, with the police and army active participants. Whilst Irish government policy was to support liberation movements abroad, which the could safely garner international kudos (or in the other candidate Mr. Higgins, critising US foreign policy)- they did not significantly support the democratic SDLP alternative, so one of the avenues that was taken by many disaffected people was paramilitary action (which had the support of a significant percentage of the Catholic population).

joolsveer

Martin McGuinness has said he never killed anyone during his time in the IRA, and that he was not indirectly responsible for any deaths.

The Sinn Féin presidential candidate was speaking following speculation about the role he played during his time in the IRA in the 1970s.

Yesterday, government Minister Phil Hogan said he did not think it would be good for Ireland for Martin McGuinness to become President, as he carried too much "baggage".

Broadcaster Gay Byrne last night called the former Northern First Minister a "consistent liar".

Mister McGuinness directly answered questions about his role in the IRA, when speaking to reporters in Cork this morning.

"I didn’t say I never fired a gun…I was in the IRA. There were battles on the streets of Derry. I've never run away from that," he said.

"But I'm not going to sensationalise in interviews something that could then be used to the detriment of the peace process and to the detriment of my colleagues within government."

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mcguinness-i-never-killed-anyone-and-was-not-responsible-for-deaths-521557.html#ixzz1YgKdgmI5

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mcguinness-i-never-killed-anyone-and-was-not-responsible-for-deaths-521557.html

Is this credible? How will we know where the truth lies?

KeithAFC

joolsveer wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mcguinness-i-never-killed-anyone-and-was-not-responsible-for-deaths-521557.html

Is this credible? How will we know where the truth lies?

No. I don't think he is telling the truth. He is lying. Gay Byrne is right in what he said.

PomBear

joolsveer wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mcguinness-i-never-killed-anyone-and-was-not-responsible-for-deaths-521557.html

Is this credible? How will we know where the truth lies?

There's nothing to say otherwise...

Ald

Nuttzz wrote: »

Praising Mcguinesses statesmanship is bit like praising a child abuser hasnt hurt kids in years. Sure they have seen the error of their ways but that doesnt mean they should be trusted....

Why did Norris automatically come to mind the first time I read your comment? I know he hasn't hurt children but that isn't a good sign that that comes to mind when you think of him.

Paedophilia is a completely different subject altogether. I'm not sure you can ever cure that sort of thinking. I'm not sure about murder either but gut instinct would tell me it's different.

lugha

Manach wrote: »

Whilst I will not be voting for Mr. McGuinness, it would be based on the economic policy of SF and not for his past record. He was a product of an environment that had oppressed his people for decades, with the police and army active participants. Whilst Irish government policy was to support liberation movements abroad, which the could safely garner international kudos (or in the other candidate Mr. Higgins, critising US foreign policy)- they did not significantly support the democratic SDLP alternative, so one of the avenues that was taken by many disaffected people was paramilitary action (which had the support of a significant percentage of the Catholic population).

If they had restricted themselves to representing that minority that did support them their actions might well be justified. But they didn't, they purported to represent all Irish people.

Of course they were not the first to do that. But at least those that set the precedent before them were could make some claim that they had the support of the people (or at least genuinely believe that they did). But modern republicans were told repeatedly and unequivocally at the ballot box, that they did not, but continued regardless. And (and for me this is the crucial point), they now continue to insist that their actions were justified.

If MMG is elected (and I think he might; his current tormentors might inadvertently be helping him) then it will make a mockery of our past bleats (and current with the dissidents) of not in our name.

sbsquarepants

Nuttzz wrote: »

Praising Mcguinesses statesmanship is bit like praising a child abuser hasnt hurt kids in years. Sure they have seen the error of their ways but that doesnt mean they should be trusted....

I think you're completely missing the point. Firstly the paedo analogy is nonsense, and deliberately emotive. And secondly, who says he's seen "the error of his ways"?
I don't get any sense that he feels his ways were in error. They were a means to an end, the end being self government. He's achieved, well partly achieved i suppose, but compromise is sometimes neccesary, what he set out to achieve, so what possible reason would he have for now thinking his methods were wrong? He's just sharp enough to realise they've gotten him as far as they're going to, time for the next phase which is what we have now.
It takes a lot of intelligence and courage to realise that and a hell of a lot of persuasion to push that idea through an organisation such as the provos - the sheer scale and the difficulty of what this man has achieved is absolutely immense. He doesn't get nearly as much credit as he deserves, in my opinion

Ald

lugha wrote: »

If they had restricted themselves to representing that minority that did support them their actions might well be justified. But they didn't, they purported to represent all Irish people.

Of course they were not the first to do that. But at least those that set the precedent before them were could make some claim that they had the support of the people (or at least genuinely believe that they did). But modern republicans were told repeatedly and unequivocally at the ballot box, that they did not, but continued regardless. And (and for me this is the crucial point), they now continue to insist that their actions were justified.

If MMG is elected (and I think he might; his current tormentors might inadvertently be helping him) then it will make a mockery of our past bleats (and current with the dissidents) of not in our name.

Have a think about what you're saying and please tell me it's not just some airy fairy arty farty technical reason for thinking what you think...

I'm pretty sure the British people if they saw on the ground what their army do in war zones would say that that army do not represent them and their moral compass. What one stands for and what one is compelled to do in life are often quite different. I think we've all done things we're ashamed of that we wish wasn't so but occurred because of circumstance. To not understand that shows lack of humanity and compassion in my opinion.

sbsquarepants

Ald wrote: »

Have a think about what you're saying and please tell me it's not just some airy fairy arty farty technical reason for thinking what you think...

I'm pretty sure the British people if they saw on the ground what their army do in war zones would say that that army do not represent them and their moral compass. What one stands for and what one is compelled to do in life are often quite different. I think we've all done things we're ashamed of that we wish wasn't so but occurred because of circumstance. To not understand that shows lack of humanity and compassion in my opinion.

Remember the marches, riots almost against the Iraq war?
Remember the same in America, and also against Vietnam?
But still both countries can recognise the qualities in military leaders of in some cases, extremely unpopular campaigns.
The majority of people are always going to be abhored by war, whether conventional or guerilla. No one likes to see people dying.

vellocet

lugha wrote: »

If MMG is elected (and I think he might; his current tormentors might inadvertently be helping him) then it will make a mockery of our past bleats (and current with the dissidents) of not in our name.

Or it says that a ceasefire later you are mainstream and able to sit at the top table and make changes.

KeithAFC

Martin says the ROI media rejecting him is also an insult to Unionists like Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson.

problemchimp

CucaFace wrote: »

Ald i understand your point on certain people's view McGiuness and their own political conections but yo have to see that at the very core here is that this guy was invloved in murder and how the hell could we put this guy in as president as this country?

What kind of image would this send out? Think of the great people who have held this job as of late and the great work they have done and now at a time when we really need a better image (IMO) it would just be shocking to put McGuiness in as president.

It also shows how deluded Sinn Fein really are if they can't als see this.

Sean Lemass entered the Dail with a gun in his pocket, (And I don't mean a hardon). DeValera was president with a revolutionary past,Sean T O Kelly was a member of Sinn Fein.What sort of image did that send out. Time to move on, if he is good enough for the people of the six counties then he is good enough for you and me.

Nuttzz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

who says he's seen "the error of his ways"?
I don't get any sense that he feels his ways were in error.

So he is an unrepentant senior figure in an organisation that killed 600+ civilians during its campaign, Im sure for example the death of 3 year old Jonathan Ball was an excellent contributor to Marty's self governing goal.

Quick get him to the aras!

problemchimp

Nuttzz wrote: »

So he is an unrepentant senior figure in an organisation that killed 600+ civilians during its campaign, Im sure for example the death of 3 year old Jonathan Ball was an excellent contributor to Marty's self governing goal.

Quick get him to the aras!

What do you think of Nelson Mandella? Just askin'

LordSutch

I once heard an interview between Martin McGuinness & Eamon Dunphy, it was on Today FM and Dunphy was doing the 'Last Word' slot, about five or six years ago I think. What caught me ear that day was a comment Dunphy made, something to do whith being a "Fellow Traveller" which he addressed to Mr McGuinness! I guess it meant that Dunphy also wanted a United Ireland (or does it)? maybe Dunphy meant that he was a fellow traveller on the way to the Aras? or maybe they both lived in caravans at Dale Farm?

Anyone know what describing themselves as a 'Fellow Traveller' might mean in the context of an interview with Martin McGuinness?

irishh_bob

Ald wrote: »

Just scanning through the headlines in the Irish Independent today and two articles grabbed my attention...

1. Bloody Sunday: Families of victims to be paid compensation after 40 years
2. Race for the áras: Gay Byrne calls presidential candidate McGuinness a 'consistent liar'

It makes me wonder if the media in this country lack compassion on the issue of McGuinness's presidency run. Now, let me clarify that I in no way condone the activities of the troubles and I feel whole heartedly for the victims of both sides. But, as I see it I can't help feel that Mr. McGuinness's road in life was a product of British policy at the time. Ask youself this: If your friends were being maimed and murdered around you what would you do? Are the Irish media, including RTé from what I've heard from Pat Kenny and Joe Duffy lately, just an arm of the political parties that feel very threatened by McGuinness at the moment?

I think it's a bit rich for Gay Byrne to call McGuinness a 'gunman' and 'liar'. He put his flag to the mast as a F.F. man. I could never imagine a F.F. man supporting a S.F. candidate in any way, both parties seeking the Republican vote afterall. I choose not to listen to his progaganda given what his party did to this country.

McDowell's point, on Frontline, refers to defiance of the Irish Army but was it not the Irish Army that stood on the Derry border prepped to go North if given the instruction? But they never crossed that border. Was that a failing on our part and would the I.R.A. have ever felt a compulsion to act in the way they did had the nationalist community up North have had better protection?

Now, I see all the councils around the country having emergency meetings to endorse Norris. I have no doubt Norris will get the nod. But it makes me wonder if that's an anti-McGuinness endorsement rather than pro-Norris...

Personally, I'll wait to hear what Mr. McGuinness has to say and what he can bring to us. But, I will seriously consider giving my vote to him.

i saw that interview with gay byrne and it was a very good one , in fairness he didnt say mc guinness was a liar , he said they lie when refering to mc guinness , adams and politicians in general , that they dont mind lieing , i might add , gay also refered to the fact that dev was a gunman

irishh_bob

HellsAngel wrote: »

If the Irish army had been sent in world opinion and especially American would have been totally supportive of Ireland as it would have been seen as coming to the aid of the beleaguered Catholic population, it would certainly not have been seen as an "invasion". And the NI statelet wasn't and still isn't very populiar with the average English person, they'd rather be rid of it.

Lynch and FF didn't send the army in because the Gombeen men in the 26 govt - despite their rethoric for 5 decades regarding a United Ireland - as it would have disturbed their cosy, corrupt, conservative, catholic set-up, and didn't want their profitable political life and little fiefdoms distrubed in anyway. These quislings have absolutely not the slightest care or concern for the ordinary people of Ireland, we seen it in 1969 and we are now seeing it again with NAMA etc as they ditch the country so to protect themselves and their corrupt cronies at the expense of everyone else.

your indeed very naieve if you think the american goverment would have backed ireland had they invaded northern ireland , the uk is americas second closts aly after israel , nixon would have backed ted heath had the uk invaded the irish republic , let alone if the uk went to war with ireland over the north us irish like to think that everyone loves us , americans and the american goverment place much higher value on thier relationship with britain , always have and i include JFK

problemchimp

LordSutch wrote: »

I once heard an interview between Martin McGuinness & Eamon Dunphy, it was on Today FM and Dunphy was doing the 'Last Word' slot, about five or six years ago I think. What caught me ear that day was a comment Dunphy made, something to do whith being a "Fellow Traveller" which he addressed to Mr McGuinness! I guess it meant that Dunphy also wanted a United Ireland (or does it)? maybe Dunphy meant that hes was a fellow traveller on the way to the Aras? or maybe they both lived in caravans at Dale Farm?

Anyone know what describing themselves as a 'Fellow Traveller' might mean in the context of an interview with Martin McGuinness?

You are asking us to get into the head of Dunphy? Ah come on now, we're good, but not that good.

irishh_bob

Manach wrote: »

Whilst I will not be voting for Mr. McGuinness, it would be based on the economic policy of SF and not for his past record. He was a product of an environment that had oppressed his people for decades, with the police and army active participants. Whilst Irish government policy was to support liberation movements abroad, which the could safely garner international kudos (or in the other candidate Mr. Higgins, critising US foreign policy)- they did not significantly support the democratic SDLP alternative, so one of the avenues that was taken by many disaffected people was paramilitary action (which had the support of a significant percentage of the Catholic population).

+1 , i myself oppose sinn fein due to thier barmy economic ideas and policys ( although i agree with them on defaulting and leaving the euro ) , not the role they played in northern ireland

its all very well being civilised down here in the republic but when you were dealing with an unjust and immoral state , appealing to thier better nature with a silver tongue and well articulated sentences , simply wasnt enough , history has shown us that peacefull protest is often brushed aside , beit with the recent libyan revolution or elsewhere , some people need to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer in order to get thier attention , sad but true

Nuttzz

problemchimp wrote: »

What do you think of Nelson Mandella? Just askin'

I thought his support he gave DeBeers and the diamond industry when the light was been shown on conflict diamonds a few years back was distasteful.

Sunnyisland

Lord Sutch wrote: »

I once heard an interview between Martin McGuinness & Eamon Dunphy, it was on Today FM and Dunphy was doing the 'Last Word' slot, about five or six years ago I think. What caught me ear that day was a comment Dunphy made, something to do with being a "Fellow Traveller" which he addressed to Mr McGuinness! I guess it meant that Dunphy also wanted a United Ireland (or does it)? maybe Dunphy meant that he was a fellow traveller on the way to the Aras? or maybe they both lived in caravans at Dale Farm?

Anyone know what describing themselves as a 'Fellow Traveller' might mean in the context of an interview with Martin McGuinness?

I would presume could be wrong that he meant he agreed with mcguinness in wanting a United Ireland as the majority of people in Ireland do.

sbsquarepants

Nuttzz wrote: »

So he is an unrepentant senior figure in an organisation that killed 600+ civilians during its campaign, Im sure for example the death of 3 year old Jonathan Ball was an excellent contributor to Marty's self governing goal.

Quick get him to the aras!

History is littered with "great leaders" who had blood on their hands. War is a nasty business and tends to leave a lot of bodies behind. If the IRA were really the blood thirsty, amoral killers, they are sometimes made out to be, there would have been a lot more than 600 civillians. Take canary wharf for example, that could have turned out like 911 if warnings hadn't been given.
I'm not trying to excuse the death of civillians, just put it in it's correct context. Civillians are killed in every war. The americans for all their laser guided, satelite co-ordinated precision have killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands of civillians in the last decade or so. It's a sad fact of war.
How many more would have died if it were not for the like of McGuinness and his brand of diplomacy?. He sits and deals every day, succesfully and productively, with people who tried to kill him and whom he tried to kill. Enda can't talk to Vincent Brown for Christs sake!

problemchimp

Nuttzz wrote: »

I thought his support he gave DeBeers and the diamond industry when the light was been shown on conflict diamonds a few years back was distasteful.

Would he have been presidential material in your view?

LordSutch

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Take canary wharf for example, that could have turned out like 911 if warnings hadn't been given.

Or take Enniskillen, Birmingham, or Bloody Friday?

The main point being that the PIRA never had the backing of the people of Ireland, they never had a mandate, and remember Sinn Fein only got their mandate after the IRA stopped murdering people! The SDLP (peaceful & Democratic) were the main Nationalist Party up North during the troubles. Martin & Gerry excused the actions of the IRA on a regular basis, Hume & Mallon condemned them.

John Hume only shook Adams hand 'after' the IRA stopped murdering people.

Ald

LordSutch wrote: »

Or take Enniskillen, Birmingham, or Bloody Friday?

The main point being that the PIRA never had the backing of the people of Ireland, they never had a mandate, and remember Sinn Fein only got their mandate after the IRA stopped murdering people! The SDLP (peaceful & Democratic) were the main Nationalist Party up North during the troubles. Martin & Gerry excused the actions of the IRA on a regular basis, Hume & Mallon condemned them.

John Hume only shook Adams hand 'after' the IRA stopped murdering people.

Care to tell us how they could have gotten their mandate around the time of Bloody Sunday? Or more accurately, is it a case of they were never allowed to ask for a mandate?

LordSutch

Granted they couldn't have got a mandate because they were mostly running around the place with guns & bombs, its only when they put on suits, shaved off their mustaches (Adams exempt), & stopped killing people that they started to attract a vote (in their new guise as Sinn Fein).

vellocet

LordSutch wrote: »

Granted they couldn't have got a mandate because they were mostly running around the place with guns & bombs, its only when they put on suits, shaved off their mustaches (Adams exempt), & stopped killing people that they started to attract a vote (in their new guise as Sinn Fein).

But one of the problems with this line is we will simply never know their actual level of popular support around that time as they didn't prioritise electoral politics and section 31 means that the debate was censored. The 200,000 people outside the British embassy after Bloody Sunday would point to a latent sympathy amongst a large section of the population that was airbrushed.

But regardless of then, they are seeking a mandate now. And they are not the first group of Republicans to go mainstream, some of the last batch are in cabinet...

Wolfe Tone

Lordsuch is of the opinion that Pearse and co were terrorists, and furthermore he said he would have fought against them. Anti-republican to his core, and he has the neck to try and cast aside Dunphys points by saying he is biased?

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Martin says the ROI media rejecting him is also an insult to Unionists like Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson.

It is in a way.

sbsquarepants

LordSutch wrote: »

Or take Enniskillen, Birmingham, or Bloody Friday?

The main point being that the PIRA never had the backing of the people of Ireland, they never had a mandate, and remember Sinn Fein only got their mandate after the IRA stopped murdering people! The SDLP (peaceful & Democratic) were the main Nationalist Party up North during the troubles. Martin & Gerry excused the actions of the IRA on a regular basis, Hume & Mallon condemned them.

John Hume only shook Adams hand 'after' the IRA stopped murdering people.

They survived for decades against overwhelming opposition, they quite obviously had a lot more support than certain sections are prepared to admit. A lot of people perhaps didn't have the stomach for the violence, but the aims were very widely supported and still are, as can be seen by the electoral success of sinn fein recently, both north and south.
I personally think McGuinness is the stand out candidate in what was threatening to be a farce of a presidential election. He's the only candidate to my mind that even resembles a statesman. Remember - the job is basically to meet people and not much else
I think he'd make a great president, an elequent and living embodiement of how far this island has come and can still go. Beats a crappy talk show host or a singer if you ask me!