Does McGuinness have any chance given the Indo's campaign against him?

Liam Byrne

CDfm wrote: »

His Iraq and Sandanista support go uncommented on.

What's objectionable about supporting Iraq ? I do.

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

But from what I can see we are not being allowed get into a debate about these times. Martin McGuinness and his Sinn Fein handlers are doing what they always do stonewalling it.

McG has spoken often about the IRA campaign in general.

gandalf wrote: »

Are you for real, the media dropped it because Norris was tainted by the whole thing and his plummet in the polls is evidence of that. Also his cupboard only contains a minimal number of skeletons compared to Martin. Say whatever you want about Norris you cannot claim that he has any question marks that include the tag murderer hanging over his head. Martin McGuinness definitely does.

Norris very dubiously pulled a couple of lawyers names out of hat and the story went away.

gandalf wrote: »

I'm sorry but I would take the opposite view to you. Miriam as a citizen of the state whose existence Mr McGuinness has denied in the past is justified in putting severe questions to him.

Given his unwillingness throughout the whole campaign she was entitled to take an extremely aggressive stance to her questioning to try and get Martin McGuinness to answer the questions that a large section of the people of the Republic of Ireland want to hear.

It is nothing to do with hatred. If someone does not listen and does not answer questions that are entitled to be answered then they should not be surprised if people start asking them in an even more direct and confrontational fashion.

We'll have to agree to disagree, McG has been put to the sword many times, bit unusual he would be so personally angry with his treatment.

CDfm

isthatit wrote: »

the proof against martin mc guiness. seems to be "garda intelligence". two words that should never appear in the one sentence.the gardai would have based this on british intelligence and neither these would be impartial organisations.

In fairness, the issue has been written about extensively and gone unchallenged by himself.

It is not the Garda or RUC who talk about Frank Hegarty's murder in 1986 and MMG's connection but the dead mans family.

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

McG has spoken often about the IRA campaign in general.

Thats the problem he has not been truthful about his involvement.

Norris very dubiously pulled a couple of lawyers names out of hat and the story went away.

Norris dropped off the frontpage because his challenge evaporated. And again he doesn't have the crimes of murder, torture, kidnapping and treason hanging over his head like a certain Derry boy does.

We'll have to agree to disagree, McG has been put to the sword many times, bit unusual he would be so personally angry with his treatment.

Well I suppose Martin is lucky that it is only a metaphorical sword and not a real weapon like those used on a lot of people whose deaths were sanctioned and planned by the IRA leadership.

Happyman42

CDfm wrote: »

In fairness, the issue has been written about extensively and gone unchallenged by himself.

It is not the Garda or RUC who talk about Frank Hegarty's murder in 1986 and MMG's connection but the dead mans family.

While the rest of the world's media can understand why McG can't go into detail about his IRA connections for fear of destabilising the peace process, his fellow Irish men and women would rather continue looking for an inconsequential answer they have already made their minds up about.:rolleyes:

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

While the rest of the world's media can understand why McG can't go into detail about his IRA connections for fear of destabilising the peace process, his fellow Irish men and women would rather continue looking for an inconsequential answer they have already made their minds up about.:rolleyes:

So you think that the question if someone was either directly or indirectly involved in murder, torture, kidnapping and maiming of people is inconsequential?

In my opinion that betrays a very skewed moral compass about what you consider is right and wrong.

Happyman42

gandalf wrote: »

So you think that the question if someone was either directly or indirectly involved in murder, torture, kidnapping and maiming of people is inconsequential?

In my opinion that betrays a very skewed moral compass about what you consider is right and wrong.

It has nothing to do with whether I think it is right or wrong.
We signed the GFA, under which his alleged membership has had a line drawn under it and therefore has no consequence.
That's what we agreed to.
Overturn the agreement and prosecute to your hearts content, but understand the consequences as McG and the foreign media quoted very clearly do.

We have gone way off topic ^^ and my that's final word on this thread, I was interested in examining the media's behaviour but we can't be neutral.

P.s. to paraphrase the earlier mentioned late John Kelly, 'What really gets up my nose' on a politics thread is somebody with a poster on ignore, tripping themselves up to 'thank' replies to me. Says a lot!

gandalf

Happyman42 wrote: »

It has nothing to do with whether I think it is right or wrong.
We signed the GFA, under which his allegeded membership has had a line drawn under it and therefore has no consequence.

If there is no consequence then he should be able to be open about his past, shouldn't he?

That's what we agreed to.
Overturn the agreement and prosecute to your hearts content, but understand the consequences as McG and the foreign media quoted very clearly do.

The foreign media do not have to live with the reality of an accused mass murderer becoming our president.

We havway e gone off topic ^^ and my that's final word on this thread, I was interested in examining the media's behaviour but we can't be neutral.

No we haven't gone off topic at all. His past is exactly the reason he is getting this "up close and personal treatment" from numerous media outlets. Until he faces up to his past and is honest with the Irish people he can expect more of the same.

I find it incredible that you and the others who are championing his cause do not at least acknowledge that the concerns that a lot of citizens have in the Republic of Ireland does warrant this close scrutiny of a man who in the past denied this states right to exist.

Lukker-

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's objectionable about supporting Iraq ? I do.

I find that quite hypocritical tbh, you are aware that this led to AT LEAST over 100 times the civilian casualties that happened in the troubles and their war was as unjustified as the IRA's.

isthatit

its a bit strange that most of the people who object to mcguiness based on the fact that he was a leading figure in the ira or the same ones who would welcome a visit from queen lizzy or barack.now they really are the heads of well oiled killing machines

gandalf

Lukker- wrote: »

I find that quite hypocritical tbh, you are aware that this led to AT LEAST over 100 times the civilian casualties that happened in the troubles and their war was as unjustified as the IRA's.

isthatit wrote: »

its a bit strange that most of the people who object to mcguiness based on the fact that he was a leading figure in the ira or the same ones who would welcome a visit from queen lizzy or barack.now they really are the heads of well oiled killing machines

They are not running to be our President. Martin McGuinness is. Stop with the deflection.

Also from your post lukker you seem to deem a number of civilian casualties acceptable. What is the magic number when acceptable becomes unacceptable? We'd all love to hear the magic number.

Liam Byrne

Lukker- wrote: »

I find that quite hypocritical tbh, you are aware that this led to AT LEAST over 100 times the civilian casualties that happened in the troubles and their war was as unjustified as the IRA's.

I am aware. But the issue is that the war was started by the Americans who coined the phrase "collateral damage" and shelled Baghdad from a distance with the same contempt for innocent civilians as the IRA.

Ideally, I'd like to support neither. So I'm being in no way hypocritical, as I simply want to allow Iraq the same courtesy that we do America, and either allow them to use Shannon, or allow neither.

But before you go off on strenous links, bear in mind that neither Obama nor the leader of the rebels is running for election here.

isthatit

martin mc guiness put his life on the line for this country thats why he will get my vote

Liam Byrne

isthatit wrote: »

its a bit strange that most of the people who object to mcguiness based on the fact that he was a leading figure in the ira or the same ones who would welcome a visit from queen lizzy or barack.now they really are the heads of well oiled killing machines

....and if they were running for election we would dissect their record in the exact same way.

Re protesting visits from lizzy or barack - have you seen us out protesting at McG's visits to this country to canvass or be interviewed ?

Monty Burnz

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you wish to proscribe opinion now, because you don't agree with it? Is that not getting a wee bit blueshirty?

Does anyone else find it slightly ironic that this is thrown around as an insult towards a party that was founded after the blueshirts disbanded by the supporters of a party that until fairly recent years were in the business of blowing up innocent men, women and children?

It's a bit like Ted Bundy ridiculing Eric Cantona for his violent tendencies for giving that fan a karate kick. :P

Liam Byrne

isthatit wrote: »

martin mc guiness put his life on the line for this country thats why he will get my vote

...which he's entitled to do.

Unfortunately he chose to do the same with other people's lives, against their will.

gandalf

isthatit wrote: »

martin mc guiness put his life on the line for this country thats why he will get my vote

He denied this countries existence therefore he never put his life on the line for my country.

He did head an organisation that was involved in criminal acts in this state all the way up to murder of citizens and servants of this state.

isthatit

Liam Byrne wrote: »

....and if they were running for election we would dissect their record in the exact same way.

Re protesting visits from lizzy or barack - have you seen us out protesting at McG's visits to this country to canvass or be interviewed ?

i dont know what you look like, so wouldnt know if you where there or not. as for martins record unlike a lot of others who done a lot of talking but no action . matin actually put his money where his mouth was, joined the ira and help the irish peoples struggle against british oppression. while those south of the border lauded micheal collins as a hero for his part in the war against britain. they seem to forget collins was a drunken murdering thieve who left fellow irish too rot and die by creating a sectarian britsh state within ireland.

Liam Byrne

isthatit wrote: »

i dont know what you look like, so wouldnt know if you where there or not.

It was a hypothetical question :rolleyes:

To my knowledge no-one has protested at his visit and there has been no requirement for a massive security operation which shut down the capital for days because those objecting had a tendency for violent extremes.

So your point is completely invalid, and in fact is undermined given McG's own objections and stance re the Queen of England's visit.

gandalf

isthatit wrote: »

i dont know what you look like, so wouldnt know if you where there or not. as for martins record unlike a lot of others who done a lot of talking but no action . matin actually put his money where his mouth was, joined the ira and help the irish peoples struggle against british oppression.

I think you need to change that to Northern Irish Nationalist people which would be far more accurate. Then again the organisation he headed ended up killing some of them as well. They also killed citizens and servants of the Republic of Ireland so not quite the selfless heroes that you make them out to be.

while those south of the border lauded micheal collins as a hero for his part in the war against britain. they seem to forget collins was a drunken murdering thieve who left fellow irish too rot and die by creating a sectarian britsh state within ireland.

I never remember Collins being called a thief where did you get that from (hint this is where you back up that label). Don't know about his drinking habits (again proof please).

As for the Treaty I suggest you read a few books about that era so you can educate yourself about the context to the compromises that had to be made.

isthatit

gandalf wrote: »

He denied this countries existence therefore he never put his life on the line for my country.

He did head an organisation that was involved in criminal acts in this state all the way up to murder of citizens and servants of this state.

and rightly so the irish people of the six counties where hung out to dry when the then ira agreed to a divided ireland. they then created an imaginary partition on this ireland. leaving there fellow countrymen to perish hands of the unionist british communiity who wished to rid this six counties of any irish nationalists. there was ethnic cleasing taking place on this island and the cowardly impotant irish goverments response was to ignore it and deny that it was happening. to make matters worse when the irish nationalists started to fight back, the irish goverments response was to side with the british and by association they where in fact cooperating with the british army, ruc and loyalist paramilitaries. too cowardly irish goverments of f.g and lab, and f.f i would like to say thanks for nothing

Lukker-

gandalf wrote: »

They are not running to be our President. Martin McGuinness is. Stop with the deflection.

Also from your post lukker you seem to deem a number of civilian casualties acceptable. What is the magic number when acceptable becomes unacceptable? We'd all love to hear the magic number.

Not sure where you get that from re civilian casualties. Regardless, 1 civilian casualty is too many, it is even worse if there is not a just war, just needless death.

CDfm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What's objectionable about supporting Iraq ? I do.

Did you support Saddam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM2IcCepGMk

Very like George Galloway the UK MP

Happyman42 wrote: »

While the rest of the world's media can understand why McG can't go into detail about his IRA connections for fear of destabilising the peace process, his fellow Irish men and women would rather continue looking for an inconsequential answer they have already made their minds up about.:rolleyes:

I think it was Frank Hegarty's mother who said MMG said her son would be safe. So she has gone into detail of his involvement.

When it comes down to it , its individuals who are pointing the fingers.

These people also tend to be older and remember events .

Liam Byrne

CDfm wrote: »

Did you support Saddam

No. But America did.

isthatit

gandalf wrote: »

I think you need to change that to Northern Irish Nationalist people which would be far more accurate. Then again the organisation he headed ended up killing some of them as well. They also killed citizens and servants of the Republic of Ireland so not quite the selfless heroes that you make them out to be.




I never remember Collins being called a thief where did you get that from (hint this is where you back up that label). Don't know about his drinking habits (again proof please).

As for the Treaty I suggest you read a few books about that era so you can educate yourself about the context to the compromises that had to be made.

if you read a few books yourself you would know about his drinking and filtering off moneys that where being collected for the cause. to fund his lifestyle. plus the treaty was responsible for more murders in ireland than anything that has happened before or since

foggy_lad

cardwizzard wrote: »

Who said he should be asked about murders or violence?Only you.

My point is that he has gotten off scot free in this election compared to all other candidates. Everybody else has being scrutinized and their past gone over with a fine tooth comb. I believe this is orchestrated in part by sections of the media, who would like to keep MMG from winning.

Very few people want McGuinness as president apart from a few angry sinn fein/ira supporters scattered around and the few 2nd preferences he will get from Dana supporters he is just about finished.

cardwizzard wrote: »

I agree it doesn't answer Davids questions. There is alot of questions to be answered on all sides of dreadful actions that happened. A tell all inquiry from all sides, Truth and Reconciliation Forum needs to be set up, so all families can have their say and vent their anger.

However the GFA draws a line in the sand, for want of better words. Of course there is still a lot of rawness and all victims should never be forgotten. For the most part there has being peace and progress, and the future is ahead.

They also need honest answers from the murderers and those who ordered the killings, they need to name the bombers/shooters and also give all locations bodies are buried.

gandalf wrote: »

Maybe the situation is that Martin has far more dodgy material in his past than any of the other candidates.

I mean look at the media circus over David Norris and those letters. At least 10 days of front page coverage over around 9 letters that weren't disclosed properly. Now look at Martin McGuinness's past and the ambiguity and inconsistent answers from the man himself. Of course the media is going to concentrate on his past, it is "low hanging fruit". The man is utterly tainted by it. If anything I believe the media has not dug into his past in as aggressive a fashion as I would have liked. I am sure there are many out there who share my thoughts.

Indeed i get the feeling there is a lot more to be discovered about Martin McGuinness, it feels like he wants to be protected by the office of president for when the can of worms bursts open.

Happyman42 wrote: »

McG has spoken often about the IRA campaign in general.

He has never spoken about any ira campaign, he does a David Norris whenever asked about the ira and starts talking about the peace process and his lovely Londonderry, the town he loved so well he blew it to hell!

gandalf

isthatit wrote: »

if you read a few books yourself you would know about his drinking and filtering off moneys that where being collected for the cause. to fund his lifestyle. plus the treaty was responsible for more murders in ireland than anything that has happened before or since

Which books said that about his drinking and filtering off money?

And if the treaty had failed what then? The Irish forces were losing the War of Independence.

I would counter that it was the inability of people like DeValera to accept that the Treaty was the best deal that could have been achieved that cause all that additional bloodshed. Some say deep down he knew this which is why he nominated Michael Collins to negotiate the treaty in his stead.

Anyway we are getting side tracked.

CDfm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. But America did.

Versus Iran.

But Higgins is very anti american and radical and its a side of him we do not see.

Someone who supports totalitarian regimes may not care passionately about constititional rights.

foggy_lad

Forget about the newspapers and other media including the brilliant BBC and RTE waging some kind of war againsg him, the greatest campaign against Martin Mcguinness was waged over several decades by himself!

Liam Byrne

CDfm wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No. But America did.

Versus Iran.

Saddam was installed by America. Versus doesn't come into it.

CDfm wrote: »

But Higgins is very anti american and radical and its a side of him we do not see.

I suspect it's the type of "anti" that people claim re McG - as in pointing out the objectionable stuff they do.

CDfm wrote: »

Someone who supports totalitarian regimes may not care passionately about constititional rights.

And someone who supports and joins a murder gang will ?