Why Can't People Move On?

Turbine

Prior to the British Queen's visit, many on here and in the media were telling all those against her visit that we should "move on" and "stop living in the past".

Many of the posters on here that pushed this agenda are now the very same people who are doing their nut in at the thought of Martin McGuinness getting elected as the next President of Ireland. It seems that some are only willing to "move on" when it suits them.

But whenever this is pointed out to these posters, they use the excuse that "the Queen isn't running for President". But these posters went beyond just supporting the visit, many were willing to just brush aside the atrocities and murder commited by British forces on this island and in some cases defend the actions of British forces.

Its just a thought, but maybe those who were so supportive of the Queen's visit in the spirit of "moving on" should take their own advice and practice what they preach.

OMD

Turbine wrote: »

Prior to the British Queen's visit, many on here and in the media were telling all those against her visit that we should "move on" and "stop living in the past".

Many of the posters on here that pushed this agenda are now the very same people who are doing their nut in at the thought of Martin McGuinness getting elected as the next President of Ireland. It seems that some are only willing to "move on" when it suits them.

But whenever this is pointed out to these posters, they use the excuse that "the Queen isn't running for President". But these posters went beyond just supporting the visit, many were willing to just brush aside the atrocities and murder commited by British forces on this island and in some cases defend the actions of British forces.

Its just a thought, but maybe those who were so supportive of the Queen's visit in the spirit of "moving on" should take their own advice and practice what they preach.

People have moved on. We are not trying to Imprison Martin McGuinness. The IRA have not acknowledged their massive failings. They surrendered which was good and MMG was instrumental in this surrender but they have not aknowledgrd the damage they did to this country. Not only the thousands of unarmed people killed and maimed but the economic damage also. Their attempts to destroy tourism in this country. Their drug dealing, their black marketing of petrol & cigs. Their bank robberies. Their links to serious murderous lying probable war criminals internationally.
And all of this in the face of massive public opposition to them. 90+% of the people if this country would not vote SF while they supported these criminal activities. They still haven't said sorry in any meaningful way.
Their are many other organised crime bosses that I am prepared to forgive after they have served their prison sentences, but I wouldn't elect them president either.

Also, really who has commited more crimes on a personal level, the queen or Martin McGuinness?

FreudianSlippers

I can't speak for everyone, or in fact anyone but myself; however, the problem with McGuinness is honesty. I'm a staunch republican and I believe that there were some necessities to gain freedom. That being said, there were also some huge mistakes made and some life lost unnecessarily.

Now, with that being said, the fact is quite simply that McGuinness is playing a game he cannot win. EVERYONE knows he was associated with the IRA and denying it is only making him look like a coward and a two-faced liar. I'm not a SF supporter, nor am I a McGuinness supporter - HOWEVER, I would have a lot more respect for him as a person and a candidate if he said "look, yes I was involved in the IRA... but I've moved on from that.. I understand the failings and the mistakes, but I've been instrumental in the peace and I'm committed to peace"

That's all he really has to do. People can get over it, but he has to take the first step and admit that he was a part of it.

Turbine

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can't speak for everyone, or in fact anyone but myself; however, the problem with McGuinness is honesty. I'm a staunch republican and I believe that there were some necessities to gain freedom. That being said, there were also some huge mistakes made and some life lost unnecessarily.

Now, with that being said, the fact is quite simply that McGuinness is playing a game he cannot win. EVERYONE knows he was associated with the IRA and denying it is only making him look like a coward and a two-faced liar. I'm not a SF supporter, nor am I a McGuinness supporter - HOWEVER, I would have a lot more respect for him as a person and a candidate if he said "look, yes I was involved in the IRA... but I've moved on from that.. I understand the failings and the mistakes, but I've been instrumental in the peace and I'm committed to peace"

That's all he really has to do. People can get over it, but he has to take the first step and admit that he was a part of it.

McGuinness has never denied being in the IRA, and to be fair to him he doesn't hide it. The question mark is over when he left the IRA.

But I agree he should come out with the truth, but the presidential election is not the platform for that. There needs to be an international truth commission involving all sides of the conflict, only then can people come to terms with what actually happened and genuinely move on.

Just 1 person or 1 side of the conflict giving an account of their actions during the troubles while others just sit back and watch does nothing for the peace process.

But my original point is that many of those who are staunchly against his standing in the election are the very same people who weren't interested in the actions of British forces during the troubles leading up to the Queen's visit and were more than willing to either brush them aside or in some cases defend them.

Its just another example of the hypocrisy and double standards among many posters on this forum.

OMD

Turbine wrote: »

But my original point is that many of those who are staunchly against his standing in the election are the very same people who weren't interested in the actions of British forces during the troubles leading up to the Queen's visit and were more than willing to either brush them aside or in some cases defend them.

Its just another example of the hypocrisy and double standards among many posters on this forum.

Hardly double standards. Martin McGuinness was a criminal. Is he still a criminal? Possibly. He has not said when he left the IRA and so the question has to be asked "is he still a member"? If so he is committing a crime. Apart from his membership of the IRA what other crimes has Martin committed? Surely it is pretty basic to ask a president to admit to past (or current) crimes?

RMD

I'm not a Republican by any stretch, but I will happily admit I have a lot of respect for McGuinness in his role in the peace process and helping stop the violence. That said it really irritates me how he wont be open on his past, pretty much everyone knows about his involvement and role within the PIRA, admit it and get on with it. His lack of honesty isn't the quality I want in a representative of Ireland.

Turbine

OMD wrote: »

Hardly double standards.

It is double standards. If people want to campaign for truth, then do it for all sides.

OMD wrote: »

Martin McGuinness was a criminal. Is he still a criminal? Possibly. He has not said when he left the IRA and so the question has to be asked "is he still a member"? If so he is committing a crime.

Yes he has, the issue is that many don't believe that date (1974).

OMD wrote: »

Apart from his membership of the IRA what other crimes has Martin committed? Surely it is pretty basic to ask a president to admit to past (or current) crimes?

In the context of a war, no, it must be incumbent on all sides to reveal their actions in the conflict IMO, otherwise we are left with a hierarchy of victims that does nothing but to further ignite tensions on all sides, which would just stall or derail the peace process.

Pete_Cavan

Turbine wrote: »

McGuinness has never denied being in the IRA, and to be fair to him he doesn't hide it. The question mark is over when he left the IRA.

But I agree he should come out with the truth, but the presidential election is not the platform for that. There needs to be an international truth commission involving all sides of the conflict, only then can people come to terms with what actually happened and genuinely move on.

Just 1 person or 1 side of the conflict giving an account of their actions during the troubles while others just sit back and watch does nothing for the peace process.

This has nothing to do with the peace process. McGuinness wants to become president of Ireland and the Irish people want him to be more open about his past. This is about the calibre of person the Irish people want to represent them and the argument that "well if I have to do it then they should have to do it too" doesnt come into it because "they" are not part of the Presidential election.

Turbine wrote: »

But my original point is that many of those who are staunchly against his standing in the election are the very same people who weren't interested in the actions of British forces during the troubles leading up to the Queen's visit and were more than willing to either brush them aside or in some cases defend them.

Its just another example of the hypocrisy and double standards among many posters on this forum.

The Queen was born into being a ceremonial figure head and has little or no power while McGuinness chose to become a high ranking member of a terrorist organisation who murdered innocent people. You are comparing apples with oranges there. Your original point doesnt stand, you seem to be taking the Queen and the British forces during the troubles as the same thing, which is not the case. Of course British soldiers have cases to answer for their actions during the troubles, but again this is irrelevant to the Presidential election. Most people want McGuinness, as a Presidential candidate, to be more honest about his past, which is not unreasonable.

OMD

Turbine wrote: »

It is double standards. If people want to campaign for truth, then do it for all sides.



Yes he has, the issue is that many don't believe that date (1974).



In the context of a war, no, it must be incumbent on all sides to reveal their actions in the conflict IMO, otherwise we are left with a hierarchy of victims that does nothing but to further ignite tensions on all sides, which would just stall or derail the peace process.

He has not said he left the IRA in 1974. Show me where he has

We are looking for a president. I am not expecting a full truth & reconciliation format, but, the person looking for the presidency needs to be honest about their criminal activities

Turbine

OMD wrote: »

He has not said he left the IRA in 1974. Show me where he has

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0920/1224304412999.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jennymccartney/100108286/the-people-of-northern-ireland-know-the-dark-truth-about-martin-mcguinness/

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Presidential-candidate-Martin-McGuinness-claims-he-left-the-IRA-in-1974-130184533.html

cavedave

Do you know who really have a neck with their jingoistic displays of military power? Who reenact invasions like they are a tourist trip? Who you can see driving around Dublin everyday in military assault vehicles?



That's right the VIKINGS! The horn headed halfwits think their duck tour around the city is some sort of joke. On a regular basis they row a longboat from Denmark and park it within sight of the customs house.

Forget about the brits its the Vikings who seem to think an invasion is some sort of joke who annoy me

walrusgumble

OMD wrote: »

Hardly double standards. Martin McGuinness was a criminal. Is he still a criminal? Possibly. He has not said when he left the IRA and so the question has to be asked "is he still a member"? If so he is committing a crime. Apart from his membership of the IRA what other crimes has Martin committed? Surely it is pretty basic to ask a president to admit to past (or current) crimes?

As far as I remember, the Provisional IRA have long disbanded. Even the International Agents recongise this, so how can he still be a member? Are you another one of those who can not tell the difference between the different IRA fractions?

If you feel so strong that there are current crimes being committed by McGuinness and his crowd, report it to the Gardai or PSNI.

As for the Queen, some of you miss the point, she is the, albeit, titular, commander in chief of the British Forces. They are a representative of her regin and as subjects of the crown, the forces represent her and her country. Of, course it is not the same comparison, but it is legitmate for op to point these things out.

Turbine

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the peace process. McGuinness wants to become president of Ireland and the Irish people want him to be more open about his past. This is about the calibre of person the Irish people want to represent them and the argument that "well if I have to do it then they should have to do it too" doesnt come into it because "they" are not part of the Presidential election.

You can't just take the actions of Martin McGuinness or even the IRA in isolation to the wider conflict just because hes standing in the election, so of course when you're talking about him 'coming clean' it has everything to do with the peace process.

I've no issue with people wanting to know the truth, I just wish people would be more balanced in calling for it. Where were the calls for truth when the Queen visited this country back in May? Why was it ok to "move on" and "stop living in the past" then but that doesn't apply now?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Queen was born into being a ceremonial figure head and has little or no power while McGuinness chose to become a high ranking member of a terrorist organisation who murdered innocent people. You are comparing apples with oranges there. Your original point doesnt stand, you seem to be taking the Queen and the British forces during the troubles as the same thing, which is not the case. Of course British soldiers have cases to answer for their actions during the troubles, but again this is irrelevant to the Presidential election. Most people want McGuinness, as a Presidential candidate, to be more honest about his past, which is not unreasonable.

She is head of the British armed forces, so of course she's responsible for their actions. She herself awarded medals to the soliders who shot dead 13 innocent civilians in Derry in 1972.

spurious

I was born in 1963.

From as early as I was old enough to watch and understand the TV news I watched nightly accounts of the IRA fighting 'for Ireland' by shooting, blowing up and disappearing Irish people, English people, elderly people, babies, anyone at all. I watched for years and years. As an adult, I have witnessed their 'close supporters' have a 'close association' with the drug distribution network in the inner city of Dublin.

I might have been young, but I was not a fool and I was paying attention.

Now they have put on suits and come wanting me to vote for one of them for President.

Perhaps it is too soon, but I am not a fool - it has nothing to do with moving on.

Pete_Cavan

Turbine wrote: »

You can't just take the actions of Martin McGuinness or even the IRA in isolation to the wider conflict just because hes standing in the election, so of course when you're talking about him 'coming clean' it has everything to do with the peace process.

I've no issue with people wanting to know the truth, I just wish people would be more balanced in calling for it. Where were the calls for truth when the Queen visited this country back in May? Why was it ok to "move on" and "stop living in the past" then but that doesn't apply now?

Of course I can take the actions of Martin McGuinness in isolation when its in the context of the Presidential election. McGuinness is putting himself forward as a Presidential candidate and many members of the electorate want to know the truth about his past before they will consider voting for him - which is not unreasonable. He should have the integrity to tell the truth and let the people judge him on that. He would gain more respect by being honest. Arguments about the Queen and "stop living in the past" dont come into it because they dont determine his ability to perform the role of President, his level of honest and integrity do.

Turbine wrote: »

She is head of the British armed forces, so of course she's responsible for their actions. She herself awarded medals to the soliders who shot dead 13 innocent civilians in Derry in 1972.

The Queen does not devise military strategy, give or approve orders, or have any involvement in the day to day running of the British Army. She is carted out every now and then to pin a few medals on chests. McGuinness, as a high ranking member of the IRA, has been more responsible for the murder of innocent civilians than the Queen.

Wolfe Tone

spurious wrote: »

I was born in 1963.

From as early as I was old enough to watch and understand the TV news I watched nightly accounts of the IRA fighting 'for Ireland' by shooting, blowing up and disappearing Irish people, English people, elderly people, babies, anyone at all. I watched for years and years. As an adult, I have witnessed their 'close supporters' have a 'close association' with the drug distribution network in the inner city of Dublin.

I might have been young, but I was not a fool and I was paying attention.

Now they have put on suits and come wanting me to vote for one of them for President.

Perhaps it is too soon, but I am not a fool - it has nothing to do with moving on.

I fail o see how anyone could hope to get a fair balanced portrayal of how things were in the north from the southern media.

R P McMurphy

OMD wrote: »

Turbine wrote: »

But my original point is that many of those who are staunchly against his standing in the election are the very same people who weren't interested in the actions of British forces during the troubles leading up to the Queen's visit and were more than willing to either brush them aside or in some cases defend them.

Its just another example of the hypocrisy and double standards among many posters on this forum.

Hardly double standards. Martin McGuinness was a criminal. Is he still a criminal? Possibly. He has not said when he left the IRA and so the question has to be asked "is he still a member"? If so he is committing a crime. Apart from his membership of the IRA what other crimes has Martin committed? Surely it is pretty basic to ask a president to admit to past (or current) crimes?

The PIRA ceased to exist circa 2005

Sunnyisland

spurious wrote: »

I was born in 1963.

From as early as I was old enough to watch and understand the TV news I watched nightly accounts of the IRA fighting 'for Ireland' by shooting, blowing up and disappearing Irish people, English people, elderly people, babies, anyone at all. I watched for years and years. As an adult, I have witnessed their 'close supporters' have a 'close association' with the drug distribution network in the inner city of Dublin.

I might have been young, but I was not a fool and I was paying attention.

Now they have put on suits and come wanting me to vote for one of them for President.

Perhaps it is too soon, but I am not a fool - it has nothing to do with moving on.

I was born in 1962 and i was young but no fool either as I was paying attention and I seen the IRA fighting for my country when no one else was bothered and quite happy to sit on there arses and give out about it,It wasn't nice,it wasn't pleasant and having my aunt blown up by the british military/UVF in 74 in Dublin made me all to familiar of what a war/conflict can do to families,it amazes me still how people can only see republican violence when the facts are there that the majority of civilians killed in the north of Ireland were by loyalists.Doesn't make it easier by the way as there are many families like mine.
Re SF republicans and drug dealers in Dublin and as a person who lives there they are no longer SF republicans if they assist or get money from criminals and should be expelled and reported where action will be taking against them unlike FF cronies who are still a happy little gang in suits.

I will be voting MMg for president he will make a fine president.

walrusgumble

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Of course I can take the actions of Martin McGuinness in isolation when its in the context of the Presidential election. McGuinness is putting himself forward as a Presidential candidate and many members of the electorate want to know the truth about his past before they will consider voting for him - which is not unreasonable. He should have the integrity to tell the truth and let the people judge him on that. He would gain more respect by being honest. Arguments about the Queen and "stop living in the past" dont come into it because they dont determine his ability to perform the role of President, his level of honest and integrity do.

The Queen does not devise military strategy, give or approve orders, or have any involvement in the day to day running of the British Army. She is carted out every now and then to pin a few medals on chests. McGuinness, as a high ranking member of the IRA, has been more responsible for the murder of innocent civilians than the Queen.

She refused to make any public or private denouncation, at the time. She could easily have refused to acknowledge them.

OMD

Turbine wrote: »

[]


I've no issue with people wanting to know the truth, I just wish people would be more balanced in calling for it. Where were the calls for truth when the Queen visited this country back in May? Why was it ok to "move on" and "stop living in the past" then but that doesn't apply now?

[.

You are equating allowing the queen walk on Irish soil as been the same as MMG becoming president. They must both meet the same standards. Very strange.

Mr.Micro

realies wrote: »

I was born in 1962 and i was young but no fool either as I was paying attention and I seen the IRA fighting for my country when no one else was bothered and quite happy to sit on there arses and give out about it,It wasn't nice,it wasn't pleasant and having my aunt blown up by the british military/UVF in 74 in Dublin made me all to familiar of what a war/conflict can do to families,it amazes me still how people can only see republican violence when the facts are there that the majority of civilians killed in the north of Ireland were by loyalists.Doesn't make it easier by the way as there are many families like mine.
Re SF republicans and drug dealers in Dublin and as a person who lives there they are no longer SF republicans if they assist or get money from criminals and should be expelled and reported where action will be taking against them unlike FF cronies who are still a happy little gang in suits.

I will be voting MMg for president he will make a fine president.

Your opinion and highly subjective of course, and given his history he is most unsuitable IMO.

dunphy3

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can't speak for everyone, or in fact anyone but myself; however, the problem with McGuinness is honesty. I'm a staunch republican and I believe that there were some necessities to gain freedom. That being said, there were also some huge mistakes made and some life lost unnecessarily.

Now, with that being said, the fact is quite simply that McGuinness is playing a game he cannot win. EVERYONE knows he was associated with the IRA and denying it is only making him look like a coward and a two-faced liar. I'm not a SF supporter, nor am I a McGuinness supporter - HOWEVER, I would have a lot more respect for him as a person and a candidate if he said "look, yes I was involved in the IRA... but I've moved on from that.. I understand the failings and the mistakes, but I've been instrumental in the peace and I'm committed to peace"

That's all he really has to do. People can get over it, but he has to take the first step and admit that he was a part of it.

saying yes i was in the ira is ,[will be] followed by approx3years in portlaois jail,grow up.

FreudianSlippers

dunphy3 wrote: »

saying yes i was in the ira is ,[will be] followed by approx3years in portlaois jail,grow up.

He has already been arrested and charged for that offence. Why exactly should I grow up now?

Pete_Cavan

realies wrote: »

it amazes me still how people can only see republican violence when the facts are there that the majority of civilians killed in the north of Ireland were by loyalists.

Most people see violence for what it is and dont differenciate between republican and loyalist violence, sad to think some people still do.

I am judging the Presidential candidates on the criteria which I feel are important for fulfilling the role of President and will vote accordingly. Honesty is quite high on that list and atm McGuinness is scoring very low there (and hes not the only one).

dunphy3

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can't speak for everyone, or in fact anyone but myself; however, the problem with McGuinness is honesty. I'm a staunch republican and I believe that there were some necessities to gain freedom. That being said, there were also some huge mistakes made and some life lost unnecessarily.

Now, with that being said, the fact is quite simply that McGuinness is playing a game he cannot win. EVERYONE knows he was associated with the IRA and denying it is only making him look like a coward and a two-faced liar. I'm not a SF supporter, nor am I a McGuinness supporter - HOWEVER, I would have a lot more respect for him as a person and a candidate if he said "look, yes I was involved in the IRA... but I've moved on from that.. I understand the failings and the mistakes, but I've been instrumental in the peace and I'm committed to peace"

That's all he really has to do. People can get over it, but he has to take the first step and admit that he was a part of it.

look,yes i was in the ira will result in approx 3 years in portlaois jail,please just think why they are asking again and again the question????????

FreudianSlippers

dunphy3 wrote: »

look,yes i was in the ira will result in approx 3 years in portlaois jail,please just think why they are asking again and again the question????????

Broken record?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74823321&postcount=23

R P McMurphy

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

realies wrote: »

it amazes me still how people can only see republican violence when the facts are there that the majority of civilians killed in the north of Ireland were by loyalists.

Most people see violence for what it is and dont differenciate between republican and loyalist violence, sad to think some people still do.

I am judging the Presidential candidates on the criteria which I feel are important for fulfilling the role of President and will vote accordingly. Honesty is quite high on that list and atm McGuinness is scoring very low there (and hes not the only one).

Do you differentiate between state sponsored terror and that of paramilitary groups

Liam Byrne

This is a ridiculous thread.

If there were any validity in the argument then it would have to be shown that McGuinness got as much grief BEFORE declaring that he was going to be president as since.

He didn't; we just have higher standards once someone decides to run for president, and rightly so.

That said, there is an additional issue with "moving on", which is the fact that McGuinness himself refuses to........this "26 counties" and "new Ireland" and related bullcrap that he spouts is disrespectful to the state that he supposedly wants to become head of.

The day he comes out and states clearly that he understands that the president is the head of THIS STATE and that the STATE is not called "26 counties" and that he's not trying to subversively represent beyond the borders of the state, THEN we might believe that he has "moved on", and THEN we might start to do so ourselves.

If he wants to do something to represent the whole island then he should join the Ireland rugby team or something similar.

The "we fought for the rights of Irishmen" crap (i.e. apart from those who disagreed with us, informed on us, and objected to us, coz we murdered them) is a bit much to stomach too.

He's in a position of his own making; it's too soon to be trying to convince the electorate that he's changed while trying to convince the neanderthals that he hasn't - apparently they're so "peace-loving" that any attempt to view their actions for what they were is introducing the possibility of them starting over.

McGuinness has done the country a disservice by running, because we've had to stomach the release of thugs in order to gain some level of normality; accepting one of them as president is a step too far.

Pete_Cavan

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Do you differentiate between state sponsored terror and that of paramilitary groups

No, murdering innocent people is murdering innocent people regardless of who the perpetrator is.

Turbine

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That said, there is an additional issue with "moving on", which is the fact that McGuinness himself refuses to........this "26 counties" and "new Ireland" and related bullcrap that he spouts is disrespectful to the state that he supposedly wants to become head of.

The day he comes out and states clearly that he understands that the president is the head of THIS STATE and that the STATE is not called "26 counties" and that he's not trying to subversively represent beyond the borders of the state, THEN we might believe that he has "moved on", and THEN we might start to do so ourselves.

I've seen this said a few times now and I don't know where it comes from. Where in the constitution does it say the President only represents Irish citizens resident in the Republic?

The constitution states very clearly that anyone born on the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen by right, so whats wrong with him wanting to represent all Irish citizens on the island?

Also FWIW, anytime I've heard Martin McGuinness speak, he always says 'Ireland', he never says the '26 counties'.

walrusgumble

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This is a ridiculous thread.

If there were any validity in the argument then it would have to be shown that McGuinness got as much grief BEFORE declaring that he was going to be president as since.

He didn't; we just have higher standards once someone decides to run for president, and rightly so.

That said, there is an additional issue with "moving on", which is the fact that McGuinness himself refuses to........this "26 counties" and "new Ireland" and related bullcrap that he spouts is disrespectful to the state that he supposedly wants to become head of.

The day he comes out and states clearly that he understands that the president is the head of THIS STATE and that the STATE is not called "26 counties" and that he's not trying to subversively represent beyond the borders of the state, THEN we might believe that he has "moved on", and THEN we might start to do so ourselves.

If he wants to do something to represent the whole island then he should join the Ireland rugby team or something similar.

The "we fought for the rights of Irishmen" crap (i.e. apart from those who disagreed with us, informed on us, and objected to us, coz we murdered them) is a bit much to stomach too.

He's in a position of his own making; it's too soon to be trying to convince the electorate that he's changed while trying to convince the neanderthals that he hasn't - apparently they're so "peace-loving" that any attempt to view their actions for what they were is introducing the possibility of them starting over.

McGuinness has done the country a disservice by running, because we've had to stomach the release of thugs in order to gain some level of normality; accepting one of them as president is a step too far.

Anti Northern attitudes are also disrespective of this State's continued aspiration that one day, it will peacefully be an united country. (I make no comment towards you or in anyway comment on that being the sole/any reason for people's dislike of McGuinness)


.........he's not trying to subversively represent beyond the borders of the state,

Mary Robinson tried to represent Irish Citizens beyond the borders of the State ie diaspora. A President is more than the 26 County State Head but is also the Head of the Irish Nation. How is he subversively trying to represent? Mary McAleese wanted to build bridges with the North, by your defintition thats going beyind the borders of the state as she was also representing the interests of irish citizens in the north.


Applaud a sporting team and do the usual bull**** stuff about oh if our political leaders could take such an attitude, yet win the politicans try do it, remember the people that count, you get all pissy? Have you some inherent intolerance to the idea of seeking a united island? (which by winning the Presidency won't change a thing anyway)


The "we fought for the rights of Irishmen" crap (i.e. apart from those who disagreed with us, informed on us, and objected to us, coz we murdered them) is a bit much to stomach too.

That is absolutely no different to the carry on of the IRA 1919-1923 and the Free State Army and IRA of the Civil War. More Catholics afterall, were shot for being spies. Point is, people and political parties still parade their heros around - Fianna Fail & Aiken & DeV and Fine Gael had Collins & Mulchahy.


He's in a position of his own making; it's too soon to be trying to convince the electorate that he's changed while trying to convince the neanderthals that he hasn't - apparently they're so "peace-loving" that any attempt to view their actions for what they were is introducing the possibility of them starting over.

No, he is in that position because he has got, like other northerners, nothing to say about the south or a message for the south, which can distract the issues against him.



cGuinness has done the country a disservice by running, because we've had to stomach the release of thugs in order to gain some level of normality; accepting one of them as president is a step too far

And Norris? Mitchell? The reason why those thugs were released was because both the UK and Ireland and the rest of the world realised that there was a war, whether you like it or not. You think Northern Ireland would be at peace if McGuinnes, or Irvine & other parliamilitaries could not persuade the IRA and Loyalist to end the violence and listen to Hume and Trimble and more to the point, the people of Nortern Ireland?

Alot of these thugs are now constructively participating in Northern Politics, so what is your problem? Would you prefer that they were caged up and trying to ahem, revolutionise their wars for when they come out?

I really do hope you or others (I don't think you do to be fair) don't go talking up Collins and many other distinguished Ministers of our State (Aiken, Lemass, and contrary to fintan o'tooles ridiculous revisionism, De Valera, for many had a gun in their hands. Collins was not too worried about whether the people were behind him when he started his campaign. If anything, the British did not learn from 1916, thus, why many at least tolerated the IRA of 1919-1923

walrusgumble

Turbine wrote: »

I've seen this said a few times now and I don't know where it comes from. Where in the constitution does it say the President only represents Irish citizens resident in the Republic?

The constitution states very clearly that anyone born on the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen by right, so whats wrong with him wanting to represent all Irish citizens on the island?

Also FWIW, anytime I've heard Martin McGuinness speak, he always says 'Ireland', he never says the '26 counties'.

Byrne is referring to Sinn Fein's own partitionist, when it suits, line of attack, which McGuinness usually use to refer to.

There is nothing in the Constitution to say the contrary to your view. Robinson did it, McAleese did it. Before 1998, Dev, in empty speeches did it. But there is of course, the provision that our laws extend only to the 26 counties. President don't make laws though.....

Liam Byrne

Turbine wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That said, there is an additional issue with "moving on", which is the fact that McGuinness himself refuses to........this "26 counties" and "new Ireland" and related bullcrap that he spouts is disrespectful to the state that he supposedly wants to become head of.

The day he comes out and states clearly that he understands that the president is the head of THIS STATE and that the STATE is not called "26 counties" and that he's not trying to subversively represent beyond the borders of the state, THEN we might believe that he has "moved on", and THEN we might start to do so ourselves.

I've seen this said a few times now and I don't know where it comes from. Where in the constitution does it say the President only represents Irish citizens resident in the Republic?

That's the main part of the job. Of course there's an aspect where they'd represent Irish people living in the UK and USA and Australia and elsewhere, but that's not the way it comes across coming from McG.

Also FWIW, anytime I've heard Martin McGuinness speak, he always says 'Ireland', he never says the '26 counties'.

When referring to the ISLAND maybe. Because Ireland includes the North. But have you seriously never heard him refer to this state in SF-speak ?

Einhard

Turbine wrote: »

Prior to the British Queen's visit, many on here and in the media were telling all those against her visit that we should "move on" and "stop living in the past".

Many of the posters on here that pushed this agenda are now the very same people who are doing their nut in at the thought of Martin McGuinness getting elected as the next President of Ireland. It seems that some are only willing to "move on" when it suits them.

But whenever this is pointed out to these posters, they use the excuse that "the Queen isn't running for President". But these posters went beyond just supporting the visit, many were willing to just brush aside the atrocities and murder commited by British forces on this island and in some cases defend the actions of British forces.

Its just a thought, but maybe those who were so supportive of the Queen's visit in the spirit of "moving on" should take their own advice and practice what they preach.

Because moving on doesn't mean "forgetting everything that happened". I think MMG is a despicable man. I think the IRA committed despicable crimes. Do you think I should just park those feelings? Just let them slide? What kind of moral compass would one have to have to simply abandon deeply held moral convictions like that, for the sake of an abstract notion like moving on?

On a more practical level, a lot of the parties in the North seek only to move on when it's them being scrutinised. I can imagine the reaction I would have got, had I stood in the Bogside just before the inauguration of the Saville tribunal, and told the people there that they should move on, that they should stop living in the past. I imagine that being met with the equivalent of a :rolleyes: would have been the least of my troubles.

KeithAFC

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This is a ridiculous thread.

If there were any validity in the argument then it would have to be shown that McGuinness got as much grief BEFORE declaring that he was going to be president as since.

He didn't; we just have higher standards once someone decides to run for president, and rightly so.

That said, there is an additional issue with "moving on", which is the fact that McGuinness himself refuses to........this "26 counties" and "new Ireland" and related bullcrap that he spouts is disrespectful to the state that he supposedly wants to become head of.

The day he comes out and states clearly that he understands that the president is the head of THIS STATE and that the STATE is not called "26 counties" and that he's not trying to subversively represent beyond the borders of the state, THEN we might believe that he has "moved on", and THEN we might start to do so ourselves.

If he wants to do something to represent the whole island then he should join the Ireland rugby team or something similar.

The "we fought for the rights of Irishmen" crap (i.e. apart from those who disagreed with us, informed on us, and objected to us, coz we murdered them) is a bit much to stomach too.

He's in a position of his own making; it's too soon to be trying to convince the electorate that he's changed while trying to convince the neanderthals that he hasn't - apparently they're so "peace-loving" that any attempt to view their actions for what they were is introducing the possibility of them starting over.

McGuinness has done the country a disservice by running, because we've had to stomach the release of thugs in order to gain some level of normality; accepting one of them as president is a step too far.

He really does need to get over the 26 county thing. Martin Mcguinness is possibly the worst person to run in a serious election because 1) He says he left the PIRA after 1974 and 2) He won't even name the state by its proper title.

murraykil

Turbine wrote: »

Prior to the British Queen's visit, many on here and in the media were telling all those against her visit that we should "move on" and "stop living in the past".

Many of the posters on here that pushed this agenda are now the very same people who are doing their nut in at the thought of Martin McGuinness getting elected as the next President of Ireland. It seems that some are only willing to "move on" when it suits them.

But whenever this is pointed out to these posters, they use the excuse that "the Queen isn't running for President". But these posters went beyond just supporting the visit, many were willing to just brush aside the atrocities and murder commited by British forces on this island and in some cases defend the actions of British forces.

Its just a thought, but maybe those who were so supportive of the Queen's visit in the spirit of "moving on" should take their own advice and practice what they preach.

Some Unionists cannot move on as they see Martin McGuinness as someone who took away their position of domination and thus their ability to abuse this position of domination to discriminate against those who they treated as a lower class of citizen.

beeno67

If a unionist politician, a former loyalist or say a prominent member of the Parachute regiment (from 1970s) wanted to stand for election, do you honestly think SF would not go on about their past?

lugha

Turbine wrote: »

Prior to the British Queen's visit, many on here and in the media were telling all those against her visit that we should "move on" and "stop living in the past".

Many of the posters on here that pushed this agenda are now the very same people who are doing their nut in at the thought of Martin McGuinness getting elected as the next President of Ireland. It seems that some are only willing to "move on" when it suits them.

But whenever this is pointed out to these posters, they use the excuse that "the Queen isn't running for President". But these posters went beyond just supporting the visit, many were willing to just brush aside the atrocities and murder commited by British forces on this island and in some cases defend the actions of British forces.

Its just a thought, but maybe those who were so supportive of the Queen's visit in the spirit of "moving on" should take their own advice and practice what they preach.

The reason some of us objected to the objections to the queen visits were not so much about a desire to forget the past but because, well it was pretty silly. Object to a powerless figurehead while at the very same time, entertain the political leader of Britain, who was cordially received as the head of a friendly neighbouring nation with no fuss or controversy?

The reason some of us are currently suspicious of Sinn Fein is because we are not convinced that they have fully embraced democracy. The “26 counties” references, while being of no great importance it itself, betrays something of their mindset. You must wonder in their various meetings and internal party discussions if some naive young fellow did not say “lads, we signed up to GFA and accepted the two state status of Ireland for now. Maybe we should stop using the terms that we used when we wanted to convey that we did not recognise these states?” I wonder that the response to such a subversive (!) young fellow might be?

And of course, and perhaps more worryingly, there is the blanket refusal to admit (never mind repent) that there was anything amiss with their past arrogance when they presumed they represented all of Ireland despite being repeatedly told, “not in our name”

johnnyskeleton

How about this - I have no problem with moving on about the troubles in the north, but would have grave difficulties voting for a Stalinist party that is not above resorting to violence when it suits them.

Moreover, I am unwilling to vote for a president who doesn't recognise the republic of Ireland and instead makes some mealy mouthed reference the country or the south.

Sunnyisland

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How about this - I have no problem with moving on about the troubles in the north, but would have grave difficulties voting for a Stalinist party that is not above resorting to violence when it suits them.

As far as i know The official IRA is disbanded and most of its members are in the labour party now, so no worrys there.

Sunnyisland

beano 67 wrote: »

If a unionist politician, a former loyalist or say a prominent member of the Parachute regiment (from 1970s) wanted to stand for election, do you honestly think SF would not go on about their past?

There are many a unionist politician with strong links to loyalist paramilitaries who have gone for election David Irvine being one of them, Paddy ashdown is a former marine and MI5 officer he was also at one time leader of the liberal party in the uk and also set on the parades commision of NI where he described MMG/GA/Ian paisley as heroes.

johnnyskeleton

realies wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How about this - I have no problem with moving on about the troubles in the north, but would have grave difficulties voting for a Stalinist party that is not above resorting to violence when it suits them.

As far as i know The official IRA is disbanded and most of its members are in the labour party now, so no worrys there.

The official IRA is not the problem. The PIRA has disarmed and disbanded, but that doesn't exactly mean that the military wing of SF doesn't retain contacts with former members, doesn't have vast cash reserves and doesn't have residual contacts with arms dealers internationally. So I'm not sure that SF are above fighting a new campaign when the need suits.

Add to that their Stalinist views, and really is it that unreasonable to be suspicious of them?

R P McMurphy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

realies wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How about this - I have no problem with moving on about the troubles in the north, but would have grave difficulties voting for a Stalinist party that is not above resorting to violence when it suits them.

As far as i know The official IRA is disbanded and most of its members are in the labour party now, so no worrys there.

The official IRA is not the problem. The PIRA has disarmed and disbanded, but that doesn't exactly mean that the military wing of SF doesn't retain contacts with former members, doesn't have vast cash reserves and doesn't have residual contacts with arms dealers internationally. So I'm not sure that SF are above fighting a new campaign when the need suits.

Add to that their Stalinist views, and really is it that unreasonable to be suspicious of them?

It is worse than that Johnny, the minute Martin gets elected supreme overlord of our army there are plans afoot to order out vast forces across the border to rape and pillage all before them. Be afraid

sarumite

I can move on and stop looking at Britain (and their head of state) through the prism of past grievences. That doesn't mean I have to ignore the actions of specific people and their previous acts.

Equally I can look at SF as a modern democratic party. That doesn't mean I have to ignore specific people or their previous actions.

My problems with MMcG becoming president has to do with the fact he is MMcG and not because he is a member of the SF party.

Turbine

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's the main part of the job. Of course there's an aspect where they'd represent Irish people living in the UK and USA and Australia and elsewhere, but that's not the way it comes across coming from McG.

Why did you ignore the second part of what I said? Do you not accept that those born in the North are Irish citizens, no different to you and me?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

When referring to the ISLAND maybe. Because Ireland includes the North. But have you seriously never heard him refer to this state in SF-speak ?

No, look back at any speech hes made in this campaign and hes always said 'Ireland'. So get over this '26 county' thing, its a red herring used by the likes of Gay Mitchell to distract people away from the real issues, that has no relevance to the campaign.

Einhard wrote: »

Because moving on doesn't mean "forgetting everything that happened". I think MMG is a despicable man. I think the IRA committed despicable crimes. Do you think I should just park those feelings? Just let them slide? What kind of moral compass would one have to have to simply abandon deeply held moral convictions like that, for the sake of an abstract notion like moving on?

I never said it did, my original point was in relation to having a bit of balance. Why was it acceptable to just "park" the feelings of the troubles in relation to Britain's part in the war when the Queen visited here back in May? Why were we all told to "move on" and "stop living in the past" then but all of a sudden we shouldn't do that now?

Its the hypocrisy and double standards of some people on here and in the media that gets me. If you want to be a champion for truth, fine, but do it for all sides.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Moreover, I am unwilling to vote for a president who doesn't recognise the republic of Ireland and instead makes some mealy mouthed reference the country or the south.

Our country's name isn't the 'republic of Ireland'. Its 'Ireland' in English or 'Éire' in Irish.

Maybe read up on the constitution before lecturing others on it...

FreudianSlippers

Turbine wrote: »

Our country's name isn't the 'republic of Ireland'. Its 'Ireland' in English or 'Éire' in Irish.

Maybe read up on the constitution before lecturing others on it...

You are correct regarding the name, however I think you're over-reacting here a bit.

Lowercase 'R' implies that JS was not calling it the Republic of Ireland as the English do, rather describing it as the republic of Ireland (which is correct as Ireland is technically a republic).

Plus you're glossing over the substance of the post, which is that he is always calling it the south for some odd reason.

Eliot Rosewater

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 26 counties:




Source:
http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/leaflet-from-martin-mcguinness-sinn-fein-2011-presidential-election/

Mervyn Crawford

In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy.

Leon Trotsky "Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism"
The IRA replaced the mass struggle of the Civil Rights movement with a campaign of terror. One cannot 'move on' from the history of the IRA because Sinn Fein, and nationalist politics and ideolgy, are the last line of defence of capitalism in Ireland.

Batsy

Turbine wrote: »

Prior to the British Queen's visit, many on here and in the media were telling all those against her visit that we should "move on" and "stop living in the past".

Many of the posters on here that pushed this agenda are now the very same people who are doing their nut in at the thought of Martin McGuinness getting elected as the next President of Ireland. It seems that some are only willing to "move on" when it suits them.

But whenever this is pointed out to these posters, they use the excuse that "the Queen isn't running for President". But these posters went beyond just supporting the visit, many were willing to just brush aside the atrocities and murder commited by British forces on this island and in some cases defend the actions of British forces.

Its just a thought, but maybe those who were so supportive of the Queen's visit in the spirit of "moving on" should take their own advice and practice what they preach.

Unlike Martin McGuinness, Queen Elizabeth II has never been a leader of a terrorist organisation, has never been directly involved with killing innocent people and has never been convicted of having been found in possession of 250lb of explosives in her car.

Batsy

walrusgumble wrote: »

as subjects of the crown, the forces represent her and her country.

They aren't subjects of the Crown. They are citizens of the Crown.

Batsy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You are correct regarding the name, however I think you're over-reacting here a bit.

Lowercase 'R' implies that JS was not calling it the Republic of Ireland as the English do, rather describing it as the republic of Ireland (which is correct as Ireland is technically a republic).

Plus you're glossing over the substance of the post, which is that he is always calling it the south for some odd reason.

Is it only the English who call it the Republic of Ireland?