Is it time for Irish Republicans to admit their mistakes?

Corruptable

In recent weeks I've been watching the Presidential election campaign with interest following the announcement that Martin McGuinness would be standing as one of seven candidates, with the support of his party's Oireachtas members and a few Independents.

For me, it raised very pertinent issues about the history of the Troubles, reconciliation and the future with the resurfacing of the legacy of a brutal conflict in which affected nearly everyone in some way. It was clear that Martin McGuinness was once again confronted by a past which he can neither deny nor seem to fully accept, though still expressing regret over what occurred.

Some might by cynical and say that these issues were deliberately brought out into the campaign, but that's irrelevant, it's clear that the issues have not gone away and that people still feel hurt on all sides, that much is clear from the family of the victims. However I think it's a political imperative that we do not suffer a repeat of the civil war style politics that have obstructed political discourse in this country for the past 88 years.

Is it not time for real reconciliation, and not just talk about it, but actual acknowledgement that a lot of things that happened were wrong, and were pursued as part of a strategy of armed action which was not always the most suitable means of achieving the republican movement's political objectives?

Morality is something which is clearly measured by an objective standard, I am not saying that there was only one side in the conflict which took place during the "Troubles". But the dragging on of it's legacy is not something which is beneficial to society, but rather a detrimental division in my view which must be addressed rather than continue as a factor on the political landscape which is used merely for point scoring at times (eg: The most often used being the murder of Det. Gda. Jerry McCabe on one side, and the repression of civil rights campaigns and Bloody Sunday on the other) which does no justice to any of those horrible events along a timeline of horror.

irishh_bob

Corruptable wrote: »

In recent weeks I've been watching the Presidential election campaign with interest following the announcement that Martin McGuinness would be standing as one of seven candidates, with the support of his party's Oireachtas members and a few Independents.

For me, it raised very pertinent issues about the history of the Troubles, reconciliation and the future with the resurfacing of the legacy of a brutal conflict in which affected nearly everyone in some way. It was clear that Martin McGuinness was once again confronted by a past which he can neither deny nor seem to fully accept, though still expressing regret over what occurred.

Some might by cynical and say that these issues were deliberately brought out into the campaign, but that's irrelevant, it's clear that the issues have not gone away and that people still feel hurt on all sides, that much is clear from the family of the victims. However I think it's a political imperative that we do not suffer a repeat of the civil war style politics that have obstructed political discourse in this country for the past 88 years.

Is it not time for real reconciliation, and not just talk about it, but actual acknowledgement that a lot of things that happened were wrong, and were pursued as part of a strategy of armed action which was not always the most suitable means of achieving the republican movement's political objectives?

Morality is something which is clearly measured by an objective standard, I am not saying that there was only one side in the conflict which took place during the "Troubles". But the dragging on of it's legacy is not something which is beneficial to society, but rather a detrimental division in my view which must be addressed rather than continue as a factor on the political landscape which is used merely for point scoring at times (eg: The most often used being the murder of Det. Gda. Jerry McCabe on one side, and the repression of civil rights campaigns and Bloody Sunday on the other) which does no justice to any of those horrible events along a timeline of horror.

tokenistic expressions of regret , forgiveness etc are not really what most people in the ground are looking for from politicians , thier is a new dispensation and all sides must respect that however grudgingly but i imagine most people in northern ireland place a bigger priority on more practical everyday isses

audi a4 2008

our land was invaded,you have to fight to protect whats ours.
yes mistakes were made,it was a dirty war
mistakes were made on both sides

read the proclamation of ireland it will help you out and give you a better understanding of our land IRISH LAND

Corruptable

irishh_bob wrote: »

tokenistic expressions of regret , forgiveness etc are not really what most people in the ground are looking for from politicians , thier is a new dispensation and all sides must respect that however grudgingly but i imagine most people in northern ireland place a bigger priority on more practical everyday isses

Well I personally would favour a more comprehensive truth and reconciliation set up. There was a lot of talk about such things in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement with even Adams coming out for an international commission.

I'm not a believer in brushing things under the carpet and giving a blank cheque, surely there must be a more practical and substancial process that should take place.

For those saying our land was invaded, etc. and that bad things happened on both sides. Ok, I can accept that but the whole invasion thing is 800 years old, and there hasn't been comprehensive admissions from any side on what their mistakes were.

Surely if things are ever to move forward, that needs to happen.

irishh_bob

Corruptable wrote: »

Well I personally would favour a more comprehensive truth and reconciliation set up. There was a lot of talk about such things in the wake of the Good Friday Agreement with even Adams coming out for an international commission.

I'm not a believer in brushing things under the carpet and giving a blank cheque, surely there must be a more practical and substancial process that should take place.

For those saying our land was invaded, etc. and that bad things happened on both sides. Ok, I can accept that but the whole invasion thing is 800 years old, and there hasn't been comprehensive admissions from any side on what their mistakes were.

Surely if things are ever to move forward, that needs to happen.

im not a fan of therapy , personal or group

KeithAFC

What mistakes are you on about specifically OP? Mistakes or military operations? To have a truth and reconciliation commission set up, you need to decide if it was a war or just terrorism.

It will never happen.

gurramok

And there lies the problem, the British will never admit it was a war, to them it was sheer terrorism and they were the peacemakers. A real reconciliation 'forum' might never happen as Britain's armed forces deeds will be exposed to the British public as well to the blind Irish public.
Reconciliation takes all sides to own up to bad past deeds and reconcile, not just one side.

Sunnyisland

Corruptible wrote: »

In recent weeks I've been watching the Presidential election campaign with interest following the announcement that Martin McGuinness would be standing as one of seven candidates, with the support of his party's Oireachtas members and a few Independents.

For me, it raised very pertinent issues about the history of the Troubles, reconciliation and the future with the resurfacing of the legacy of a brutal conflict in which affected nearly everyone in some way. It was clear that Martin McGuinness was once again confronted by a past which he can neither deny nor seem to fully accept, though still expressing regret over what occurred.

Some might by cynical and say that these issues were deliberately brought out into the campaign, but that's irrelevant, it's clear that the issues have not gone away and that people still feel hurt on all sides, that much is clear from the family of the victims. However I think it's a political imperative that we do not suffer a repeat of the civil war style politics that have obstructed political discourse in this country for the past 88 years.

Is it not time for real reconciliation, and not just talk about it, but actual acknowledgement that a lot of things that happened were wrong, and were pursued as part of a strategy of armed action which was not always the most suitable means of achieving the republican movement's political objectives?

Morality is something which is clearly measured by an objective standard, I am not saying that there was only one side in the conflict which took place during the "Troubles". But the dragging on of it's legacy is not something which is beneficial to society, but rather a detrimental division in my view which must be addressed rather than continue as a factor on the political landscape which is used merely for point scoring at times (eg: The most often used being the murder of Det. Gda. Jerry McCabe on one side, and the repression of civil rights campaigns and Bloody Sunday on the other) which does no justice to any of those horrible events along a timeline of horror.

For a real truth & reconciliation it has to be from all sides not just the Republican side, And as far as i know the British government is not interested in that.

Sunnyisland

KeithAFC wrote: »

What mistakes are you on about specifically OP? Mistakes or military operations? To have a truth and reconciliation commission set up, you need to decide if it was a war or just terrorism.

It will never happen.

It was a conflict/war.

Corruptable

It's unfortunate that the governments involved won't engage in such a process. I talked extensively with a young man who was canvassing for Martin McGuinness about the unresolved issues from the conflict up to the Good Friday Agreement.

He was very articulate and respect and conceded a lot of the mistakes which were made during the years of the conflict and I have to say that he was unequivocal in his condemnation of events such as the murders (his words) of Gda. Gerry McCabe, Robert McCartney, Paul Quinn. It is quiet clear that the new generation involved in Sinn Fein and republicanism are independent enough to say what was wrong on the republican side.

I feel that the failure to resolve such legacy issues is unfair to a new generation of credible people who want to break onto new ground and I think we all suffer as a result of not allowing these young people a fair playing field.

As for Keith, I've saw your posts on a number of sites including this one and while I respect your view point. I think most people accept that it was what is now termed a "low intensity conflict" which involved the occurrence of immoral acts on all sides.

irishh_bob

gurramok wrote: »

And there lies the problem, the British will never admit it was a war, to them it was sheer terrorism and they were the peacemakers. A real reconciliation 'forum' might never happen as Britain's armed forces deeds will be exposed to the British public as well to the blind Irish public.
Reconciliation takes all sides to own up to bad past deeds and reconcile, not just one side.

providing the british keep up thier end of the present bargain , lets not rake over what they did either

A Dub in Glasgo

It is time for everyone to admit their mistakes

RandomName2

audi a4 2008 wrote: »

our land was invaded,you have to fight to protect whats ours.
yes mistakes were made,it was a dirty war
mistakes were made on both sides

read the proclamation of ireland it will help you out and give you a better understanding of our land IRISH LAND

Our land was invaded.

When?

You would have to go back to the last English Civil War.

And, as far as I'm aware, not many Irish people had much to do with the proclamation.

Why do so many coversations about Republicanism descend into arrant nonsense that has noting to do with modern Ireland?:pac:

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

It was a conflict/war.

You might think it is, not everyone does think that. Some see it as terrorism, a war, Republican aggression, Bad Unionist rule etc.

steddyeddy

KeithAFC wrote: »

What mistakes are you on about specifically OP? Mistakes or military operations? To have a truth and reconciliation commission set up, you need to decide if it was a war or just terrorism.

It will never happen.

You dont really need to decide wheter it was war or terrorism to have a reconcilliation commission.

snafuk35

It depends on what shade of republican you are talking about.

The first category are those who see themselves as ideological successors of peaceful nationalists such as O'Connell, Butt, Parnell, Redmond and Griffth and find the glorification of the 1798 rebellion problematic let alone the 1916 Easter Rising and the War of Independence. That's before we even begin to talk about the Troubles. They are republican and reject ALL violence. As far as they are concerned they have nothing to apologise for because they never supported any violence in any form.

The more mainstream FF/FG/Lab republican tradition is that the centuries of Irish struggle between Strongbow's invasion of 1169 and the end of the Civil War in 1923 are history they are proud of. They would believe that IRA violence between 1923 and 1998 and continued RIRA violence to the present day was and is illegitimate because a democratic Irish Republic was in existence and the peaceful path of Irish unity is there without the need for violence.

The Provisional SF tradition is that the Irish struggle has been continuous between 1169 and 1998 and all violence between 1969 and 1998 was legitimate. All violence post 1998 is illegitimate.

The ultra republicans in the RIRA would claim that the armed struggle begun in 1169 has never ended because there is still a British presence on Irish soil.

So which shade of republicanism are you asking to apologise?

lugha

For me, the most grievous wrong is the one you commit against your own people. Your enemy of course can do great wrong as well but in a way, this is no more than what you would expect from them; that is a consequence of being your enemy.

Bur for me, the lingering sore is that a small group of men could elevate themselves above the Irish people and decide that they knew best what was in the better interests of their people. For me, this is the appalling vista, and I am perpetually perplexed that so many people fail to see this. For those that subscribe to democracy, it is a self-evident truth that it is wrong to purport to represent your people if they make clear that they do not want your representation.

Surely before you can contemplate any admission of concession of wrong-doing towards your enemy, you must first make amends, or at the very least acknowledge, that you have wronged your own. Regrettably, there are no indications that physical force republicans recognise, mush less concede, that their presumption to act in our name was wrong.

Unless and until this attitude changes I don’t think there can be meaningful reconciliation.

And OP, I take exception to your suggestion that the murder of Garda McCabe is being used solely for point scoring. It has been repeatedly explained by me and others what was different about that particular horror.

snafuk35

lugha wrote: »

For me, the most grievous wrong is the one you commit against your own people. Your enemy of course can do great wrong as well but in a way, this is no more than what you would expect from them; that is a consequence of being your enemy.

Bur for me, the lingering sore is that a small group of men could elevate themselves above the Irish people and decide that they knew best what was in the better interests of their people. For me, this is the appalling vista, and I am perpetually perplexed that so many people fail to see this. For those that subscribe to democracy, it is a self-evident truth that it is wrong to purport to represent your people if they make clear that they do not want your representation.

Surely before you can contemplate any admission of concession of wrong-doing towards your enemy, you must first make amends, or at the very least acknowledge, that you have wronged your own. Regrettably, there are no indications that physical force republicans recognise, mush less concede, that their presumption to act in our name was wrong.

Unless and until this attitude changes I don’t think there can be meaningful reconciliation.

And OP, I take exception to your suggestion that the murder of Garda McCabe is being used solely for point scoring. It has been repeatedly explained by me and others what was different about that particular horror.

Irish resistance to British rule was always by a small number of self-appointed men.

The leaders of the Irish clans who continued to resist the Normans after 1169 had no democratic support.

The Catholic Confederacy made up of Irish chieftains and Old English Catholics who ruled two-thirds of Ireland between 1641 and 1649 were no more democratic than Charles I or Cromwell.

The Irish clans and Old English and Royalists who later supported James II against William III were not doing so out of democratic principle.

The Defenders, the United Irishmen, the Ribbonmen, Fenians, Invincibles, IRB, Irish Volunteers, IRA, Provisional IRA and Real IRA did not have any democratic legitimacy whatsoever.

We will always have small dedicated armed group who will want to keep the 'war' going.

Unfortunately...

jank

realies wrote: »

For a real truth & reconciliation it has to be from all sides not just the Republican side, And as far as i know the British government is not interested in that.

This. Sinn Fein has been for ages calling for something like that but the British government is not interested, therefore all the truth about Sinn Fein and McG will not be coming out anytime soon. Rightly so too.

junder

jank wrote: »

realies wrote: »

For a real truth & reconciliation it has to be from all sides not just the Republican side, And as far as i know the British government is not interested in that.

This. Sinn Fein has been for ages calling for something like that but the British government is not interested, therefore all the truth about Sinn Fein and McG will not be coming out anytime soon. Rightly so too.

If the British government turned round and agreed to a truth commission sinn fein, Gerry, Martin would have a heart attack because while a truth commission may absolve them from crimnal proceedings it would leave them open to civil proceedings and of course the irish people (and by that i mean the irish people living in the republic) they claimed to defend would be exposed to the full horrors of what they did. So sinn fein sit and bleat about truth commissions safe in the knowledge that the British government wants a truth commission as much as sinn fein which is not at all

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

If the British government turned round and agreed to a truth commission sinn fein, Gerry, Martin would have a heart attack because while a truth commission may absolve them from crimnal proceedings it would leave them open to civil proceedings and of course the irish people (and by that i mean the irish people living in the republic) they claimed to defend would be exposed to the full horrors of what they did. So sinn fein sit and bleat about truth commissions safe in the knowledge that the British government wants a truth commission as much as sinn fein which is not at all

Sinn fein have been calling for one for years but the British government isnt interested.

junder

steddyeddy wrote: »

junder wrote: »

If the British government turned round and agreed to a truth commission sinn fein, Gerry, Martin would have a heart attack because while a truth commission may absolve them from crimnal proceedings it would leave them open to civil proceedings and of course the irish people (and by that i mean the irish people living in the republic) they claimed to defend would be exposed to the full horrors of what they did. So sinn fein sit and bleat about truth commissions safe in the knowledge that the British government wants a truth commission as much as sinn fein which is not at all

Sinn fein have been calling for one for years but the British government isnt interested.

Sinn fein have been calling for one precisely because they know the British government won't call one, which if you read what I previously said is exactly what I already wrote

passarellaie

junder wrote: »

Sinn fein have been calling for one precisely because they know the British government won't call one, which if you read what I previously said is exactly what I already wrote

Really you should not take part in any sort of discussion your mind set is so distorted

Alopex

passarellaie wrote: »

Really you should not take part in any sort of discussion your mind set is so distorted

that opinion is not one confined to loyalists. it's been stated here and on republican.ie many a time by republicans

junder

passarellaie wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Sinn fein have been calling for one precisely because they know the British government won't call one, which if you read what I previously said is exactly what I already wrote

Really you should not take part in any sort of discussion your mind set is so distorted

Care to elaborate? Or are you just name calling because you don't like hearing alternative opinions?

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

Sinn fein have been calling for one precisely because they know the British government won't call one, which if you read what I previously said is exactly what I already wrote

Fair enough if thats the truth then why dont the British take part in one?

Alopex

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fair enough if thats the truth then why dont the British take part in one?

they did a lot of sh*t in northern ireland they don't want coming out. imagine it was decisively shown someone high up had a hand in the dublin/monaghan bombings. that would be an act of war against another sovereign nation

Corruptable

lugha wrote: »

And OP, I take exception to your suggestion that the murder of Garda McCabe is being used solely for point scoring. It has been repeatedly explained by me and others what was different about that particular horror.

Everyone has different views on that appalling tragedy, and I'm not saying that you are using it for point scoring, but I do feel that when some politicians and some in the media use this issue as a stick to attack people like McGuinness they do so in a disingenuous manner and therefore do a great disservice to the family.

Only the victims can really speak for themselves, and people in politics or the media should not appoint themselves to speak for those victims.

My view on reconciliation primarily deals with armed republicanism since 1969 in the North but it think it should also include all republican armed actions since 1923 in this State.

lugha

Corruptable wrote: »

Everyone has different views on that appalling tragedy, and I'm not saying that you are using it for point scoring, but I do feel that when some politicians and some in the media use this issue as a stick to attack people like McGuinness they do so in a disingenuous manner and therefore do a great disservice to the family.

I think that part of the problem is that those that cite this murder tend, understandably, to portray it emotively, detailing the callousness of the act, evoking the pain of the family etc. This, IMO is a mistake. If you want to pick a victim of the IRA for emotional capital, there are far more horrific cases that might be used.

The particular relevance of the McCabe case is to do with its context and not its horror. Specifically, coming as it did after republicans told us they were going the democratic road and more so, because of the behavior of Martin Ferris afterwards. To associate yourself with those that killed a protector of the state casts extensive doubt on any claims you make that your are a democrat. This is why the McCabe case won't go away and not because republican critics see it as one of the more vile acts of the troubles. Republican defenders however continue to take this latter view.

blahfckingblah

lugha wrote: »

I think that part of the problem is that those that cite this murder tend, understandably, to portray it emotively, detailing the callousness of the act, evoking the pain of the family etc. This, IMO is a mistake. If you want to pick a victim of the IRA for emotional capital, there are far more horrific cases that might be used.

The particular relevance of the McCabe case is to do with its context and not its horror. Specifically, coming as it did after republicans told us they were going the democratic road and more so, because of the behavior of Martin Ferris afterwards. To associate yourself with those that killed a protector of the state casts extensive doubt on any claims you make that your are a democrat. This is why the McCabe case won't go away and not because republican critics see it as one of the more vile acts of the troubles. Republican defenders however continue to take this latter view.

It was a very bad act, and although some people do use it like you say others like to throw it at republicans myself included when losing a debate, dispite me saying on more than one occasion that i do not support what happened to Mr McCabe. People have even questioned my sincerity based on my choice of wording.

junder

http://www.herald.ie/news/mcguinness...g-2916167.html

SINN Fein Presidential candidate Martin McGuinness is the main suspect in the brutal murder of two policemen, the Herald can reveal.

Sergeant Peter Gilgunn (26) and Constable David Montgomery (20), were gunned down in an IRA ambush as they travelled in an RUC patrol car in Derry.

They were the first police officers to lose their lives in a terrorist incident in the city for 50 years.

The ambush 40 years ago came just three days before Bloody Sunday sent shockwaves right across the Province.

But now a former RUC officer, who was in the car when the officers were killed, has revealed Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness is under the spotlight for his alleged involvement.

The retired officer, who did not want to be named, said he was told by a member of the Historic Enquiries Team investigating the case that McGuinness is the main suspect.

"A representative of the HET called to interview me in relation to the attack where two of my colleagues died and he told me Martin McGuinness was thought to have been one of the IRA men who ambushed us," he said.

The former constable was with his young colleagues in an unmarked patrol car as they travelled to Rosemount Station to end their shift.

The 59-year-old described how the driver of the patrol car tried to 'zig zag' out of danger as gunmen opened fire on them as they travelled along Creggan Road and Helen Street.

Swapped

Sergeant Gilgunn and Constable Montgomery were shot dead but the driver managed to managed to get the car on down the road to Rosemount and stopped at the station.

The officer said that after removing a badly wounded colleague from the car, he went back for Constable Montgomery.

"When I got to the car and saw him I knew he was gone.

"He had actually been shot in the back. The rounds had gone through the boot of the car and then the seat before he was hit.

"I had swapped places with Davy in the back of the car about 20 minutes before the attack... it just wasn't my time to go," he said philosophically.

When asked by the Herald what happened in the aftermath of the murders he replied simply "not much".

"I was in the station and one of the bosses spoke to me for a couple of minutes and after an hour or so I was told to go on home. It was never mentioned to me again. I took a few weeks off and was transferred to another county. That was it.

"I sometimes have a bemused think to myself nowadays when I read of people complaining that various investigations could have been more thorough. No one even took a statement from me, but I was just a cub and assumed others knew what they were doing.

"The HET people contacted me and I agreed to meet with them. I wanted to see what I could find out from them as much as anything else. After we discussed the actual shooting they wanted to know if any suspects' names were being bandied about at the time. I told them I never heard, I wasn't there after it," said the retired policeman.

"They asked who I thought was involved and I said you tell me. When pushed on this, one of them said, 'The Deputy First Minister, McGuinness himself'."

Sgt Gilgunn was married and had an eight-month-old baby. Constable Montgomery was planning his engagement party just hours before the attack.

McGuinnness's involvement has been speculated about before in relation to these murders.

Kidnapping

As a result of testimony given to the Saville Inquiry, set up to investigate events on Bloody Sunday, it was stated that McGuinness was second in command of the IRA at the time and was seen with a sub machine gun that day.

A sub-machine gun was used in the murders of Sgt Gilgunn and Constable Montgomery.

This latest revelation comes after Mr McGuinness was challenged by the son of an Irish Army Private who was killed by the IRA during the Don Tidey kidnapping episode in 1983.

A spokesperson for the Historic Enquiries Team said: "The HET deals with bereaved families on a strictly confidential basis. It does not discuss the content or progress of reviews with anyone except the family concerned."

Recently presidential candidate McGuinness claimed that while he fired a gun during the Troubles, he did not kill anyone.

He said: "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."

When asked if he had killed anyone, he answered no.

During his campaign earlier this month, McGuinness was confronted by David Kelly, the son of Private Paddy Kelly who was killed alongside Recruit Garda Gary Sheehan by the IRA in Leitrim, November 1983. McGuinness was canvassing in Athlone at the time when confronted by Mr Kelly who urged him to name his father's killers.

Is this the sort of thing the recent Irish presidential candidate wants to admit to. It may make no difference to northern Irish republicans, but I suspect it would alter alot the perception of voters in the republic. Suddenly Martin won't be as saintly as people think. Still Martin can rest easy, there is no way this case will ever see the light of day, the British government will not want to destable the peace process

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/news/mcguinness...g-2916167.html

SINN Fein Presidential candidate Martin McGuinness is the main suspect in the brutal murder of two policemen, the Herald can reveal.

Sergeant Peter Gilgunn (26) and Constable David Montgomery (20), were gunned down in an IRA ambush as they travelled in an RUC patrol car in Derry.

They were the first police officers to lose their lives in a terrorist incident in the city for 50 years.

The ambush 40 years ago came just three days before Bloody Sunday sent shockwaves right across the Province.

But now a former RUC officer, who was in the car when the officers were killed, has revealed Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness is under the spotlight for his alleged involvement.

The retired officer, who did not want to be named, said he was told by a member of the Historic Enquiries Team investigating the case that McGuinness is the main suspect.

"A representative of the HET called to interview me in relation to the attack where two of my colleagues died and he told me Martin McGuinness was thought to have been one of the IRA men who ambushed us," he said.

The former constable was with his young colleagues in an unmarked patrol car as they travelled to Rosemount Station to end their shift.

The 59-year-old described how the driver of the patrol car tried to 'zig zag' out of danger as gunmen opened fire on them as they travelled along Creggan Road and Helen Street.

Swapped

Sergeant Gilgunn and Constable Montgomery were shot dead but the driver managed to managed to get the car on down the road to Rosemount and stopped at the station.

The officer said that after removing a badly wounded colleague from the car, he went back for Constable Montgomery.

"When I got to the car and saw him I knew he was gone.

"He had actually been shot in the back. The rounds had gone through the boot of the car and then the seat before he was hit.

"I had swapped places with Davy in the back of the car about 20 minutes before the attack... it just wasn't my time to go," he said philosophically.

When asked by the Herald what happened in the aftermath of the murders he replied simply "not much".

"I was in the station and one of the bosses spoke to me for a couple of minutes and after an hour or so I was told to go on home. It was never mentioned to me again. I took a few weeks off and was transferred to another county. That was it.

"I sometimes have a bemused think to myself nowadays when I read of people complaining that various investigations could have been more thorough. No one even took a statement from me, but I was just a cub and assumed others knew what they were doing.

"The HET people contacted me and I agreed to meet with them. I wanted to see what I could find out from them as much as anything else. After we discussed the actual shooting they wanted to know if any suspects' names were being bandied about at the time. I told them I never heard, I wasn't there after it," said the retired policeman.

"They asked who I thought was involved and I said you tell me. When pushed on this, one of them said, 'The Deputy First Minister, McGuinness himself'."

Sgt Gilgunn was married and had an eight-month-old baby. Constable Montgomery was planning his engagement party just hours before the attack.

McGuinnness's involvement has been speculated about before in relation to these murders.

Kidnapping

As a result of testimony given to the Saville Inquiry, set up to investigate events on Bloody Sunday, it was stated that McGuinness was second in command of the IRA at the time and was seen with a sub machine gun that day.

A sub-machine gun was used in the murders of Sgt Gilgunn and Constable Montgomery.

This latest revelation comes after Mr McGuinness was challenged by the son of an Irish Army Private who was killed by the IRA during the Don Tidey kidnapping episode in 1983.

A spokesperson for the Historic Enquiries Team said: "The HET deals with bereaved families on a strictly confidential basis. It does not discuss the content or progress of reviews with anyone except the family concerned."

Recently presidential candidate McGuinness claimed that while he fired a gun during the Troubles, he did not kill anyone.

He said: "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."

When asked if he had killed anyone, he answered no.

During his campaign earlier this month, McGuinness was confronted by David Kelly, the son of Private Paddy Kelly who was killed alongside Recruit Garda Gary Sheehan by the IRA in Leitrim, November 1983. McGuinness was canvassing in Athlone at the time when confronted by Mr Kelly who urged him to name his father's killers.

Is this the sort of thing the recent Irish presidential candidate wants to admit to. It may make no difference to northern Irish republicans, but I suspect it would alter alot the perception of voters in the republic. Suddenly Martin won't be as saintly as people think. Still Martin can rest easy, there is no way this case will ever see the light of day, the British government will not want to destable the peace process

Which gets us back onto the point if we know all this about the ira why dont the british agree to a reconcilliation commision?

sparkling sea

audi a4 2008 wrote: »

our land was invaded,you have to fight to protect whats ours.
yes mistakes were made,it was a dirty war
mistakes were made on both sides

read the proclamation of ireland it will help you out and give you a better understanding of our land IRISH LAND

The problem is the Proclamation is almost 100 years old and was a statement of the aspirations and wishes at that time.

There have been 2 World Wars and now at least peace in Europe.

We live in a global age - boundries are irrelevent.

While understanding that many people still have aspirations and wishes concerning a all island Ireland, their are also many people whos aspirations and wishes for our country are to keep it just as it is - and this is not something that can be ignored or answered with a smart comment, becasue its becoming more and more popular an aspiration as time goes by

junder

steddyeddy wrote: »

junder wrote: »

http://www.herald.ie/news/mcguinness...g-2916167.html


SINN Fein Presidential candidate Martin McGuinness is the main suspect in the brutal murder of two policemen, the Herald can reveal.

Sergeant Peter Gilgunn (26) and Constable David Montgomery (20), were gunned down in an IRA ambush as they travelled in an RUC patrol car in Derry.

They were the first police officers to lose their lives in a terrorist incident in the city for 50 years.

The ambush 40 years ago came just three days before Bloody Sunday sent shockwaves right across the Province.

But now a former RUC officer, who was in the car when the officers were killed, has revealed Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness is under the spotlight for his alleged involvement.

The retired officer, who did not want to be named, said he was told by a member of the Historic Enquiries Team investigating the case that McGuinness is the main suspect.

"A representative of the HET called to interview me in relation to the attack where two of my colleagues died and he told me Martin McGuinness was thought to have been one of the IRA men who ambushed us," he said.

The former constable was with his young colleagues in an unmarked patrol car as they travelled to Rosemount Station to end their shift.

The 59-year-old described how the driver of the patrol car tried to 'zig zag' out of danger as gunmen opened fire on them as they travelled along Creggan Road and Helen Street.

Swapped

Sergeant Gilgunn and Constable Montgomery were shot dead but the driver managed to managed to get the car on down the road to Rosemount and stopped at the station.

The officer said that after removing a badly wounded colleague from the car, he went back for Constable Montgomery.

"When I got to the car and saw him I knew he was gone.

"He had actually been shot in the back. The rounds had gone through the boot of the car and then the seat before he was hit.

"I had swapped places with Davy in the back of the car about 20 minutes before the attack... it just wasn't my time to go," he said philosophically.

When asked by the Herald what happened in the aftermath of the murders he replied simply "not much".

"I was in the station and one of the bosses spoke to me for a couple of minutes and after an hour or so I was told to go on home. It was never mentioned to me again. I took a few weeks off and was transferred to another county. That was it.

"I sometimes have a bemused think to myself nowadays when I read of people complaining that various investigations could have been more thorough. No one even took a statement from me, but I was just a cub and assumed others knew what they were doing.

"The HET people contacted me and I agreed to meet with them. I wanted to see what I could find out from them as much as anything else. After we discussed the actual shooting they wanted to know if any suspects' names were being bandied about at the time. I told them I never heard, I wasn't there after it," said the retired policeman.

"They asked who I thought was involved and I said you tell me. When pushed on this, one of them said, 'The Deputy First Minister, McGuinness himself'."

Sgt Gilgunn was married and had an eight-month-old baby. Constable Montgomery was planning his engagement party just hours before the attack.

McGuinnness's involvement has been speculated about before in relation to these murders.

Kidnapping

As a result of testimony given to the Saville Inquiry, set up to investigate events on Bloody Sunday, it was stated that McGuinness was second in command of the IRA at the time and was seen with a sub machine gun that day.

A sub-machine gun was used in the murders of Sgt Gilgunn and Constable Montgomery.

This latest revelation comes after Mr McGuinness was challenged by the son of an Irish Army Private who was killed by the IRA during the Don Tidey kidnapping episode in 1983.

A spokesperson for the Historic Enquiries Team said: "The HET deals with bereaved families on a strictly confidential basis. It does not discuss the content or progress of reviews with anyone except the family concerned."

Recently presidential candidate McGuinness claimed that while he fired a gun during the Troubles, he did not kill anyone.

He said: "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."

When asked if he had killed anyone, he answered no.

During his campaign earlier this month, McGuinness was confronted by David Kelly, the son of Private Paddy Kelly who was killed alongside Recruit Garda Gary Sheehan by the IRA in Leitrim, November 1983. McGuinness was canvassing in Athlone at the time when confronted by Mr Kelly who urged him to name his father's killers.

Is this the sort of thing the recent Irish presidential candidate wants to admit to. It may make no difference to northern Irish republicans, but I suspect it would alter alot the perception of voters in the republic. Suddenly Martin won't be as saintly as people think. Still Martin can rest easy, there is no way this case will ever see the light of day, the British government will not want to destable the peace process

Which gets us back onto the point if we know all this about the ira why dont the british agree to a reconcilliation commision?

Jesus it's like pulling teeth with you, did you even bother to read my initial post. Sinn fein are calling for this truth commission because they know the British don't want one either. It's called politicking asking for something, even though you don't want it, because you know the other side does not want it either

blahfckingblah

junder wrote: »

Jesus it's like pulling teeth with you, did you even bother to read my initial post. Sinn fein are calling for this truth commission because they know the British don't want one either. It's called politicking asking for something, even though you don't want it, because you know the other side does not want it either

why don't the people who want it push harder for it? e-petitions could be a method of forcing the governments hand if enough people get behind it. If the Government agree then SF can't turn back on it without looking rediculous.

junder

blahfckingblah wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Jesus it's like pulling teeth with you, did you even bother to read my initial post. Sinn fein are calling for this truth commission because they know the British don't want one either. It's called politicking asking for something, even though you don't want it, because you know the other side does not want it either

why don't the people who want it push harder for it? e-petitions could be a method of forcing the governments hand if enough people get behind it. If the Government agree then SF can't turn back on it without looking rediculous.

Its sinn fein that's calling for it, so why don't you ask them?

blahfckingblah

junder wrote: »

Its sinn fein that's calling for it, so why don't you ask them?

there needs to be a lot more than just sinn fein on board for this to work

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

Jesus it's like pulling teeth with you, did you even bother to read my initial post. Sinn fein are calling for this truth commission because they know the British don't want one either. It's called politicking asking for something, even though you don't want it, because you know the other side does not want it either

You dont seem to get my point. If your point is true then all the british would have to do is say ok lets have a truth commission. Then sinn fein couldnt use the tactics your talking about.

steddyeddy

blahfckingblah wrote: »

there needs to be a lot more than just sinn fein on board for this to work

+1 the point is that if the british government agree to it sinn fein cant back out of their promise.

junder

steddyeddy wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Jesus it's like pulling teeth with you, did you even bother to read my initial post. Sinn fein are calling for this truth commission because they know the British don't want one either. It's called politicking asking for something, even though you don't want it, because you know the other side does not want it either

You dont seem to get my point. If your point is true then all the british would have to do is say ok lets have a truth commission. Then sinn fein couldnt use the tactics your talking about.

And yet again you don't seem to get my point and that is NEITHER THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT NOR SINN FIEN WANT A TRUTH COMMISSION is that clear enough? However sinn fein know that the British government won't call one so it cam bleat about truth commissions all it's wants safe in the knowledge that one will never be called.

passarellaie

junder wrote: »

Care to elaborate? Or are you just name calling because you don't like hearing alternative opinions?

Sinn Fein has publicly called for the truth commision but your mind is so twisted you imagine the English want it but wont grant it.
This is as equally delusional as your accusation Marin Mcguiness was responsible for two murders which you have not got a scintella of evidence for
As far as I am concrned this makes you at the very least a pathetic little man who would stoop to any low to prove whatever his notion of the day is

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

And yet again you don't seem to get my point and that is NEITHER THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT NOR SINN FIEN WANT A TRUTH COMMISSION is that clear enough? However sinn fein know that the British government won't call one so it cam bleat about truth commissions all it's wants safe in the knowledge that one will never be called.

Have you got evidence that sinn fein dont a truth commision? Apart from that your point seems to suggest both are as bad as each other. You have basically gave an opinion Junder which seems to paint sinn fein as the bad guys in this scenario. You say the british dont want a truth commision and even though sinn fein dont want a truth commision they said they do because the british dont want one either. How do you know they dont want a truth commision?

steddyeddy

Anyway Junder if sinn fein are playing this tactical game you suggest the british government would only have to agree to a commision wheter or not they aim to go through with it. that way sinn fein would back out and be exposed as liars and the british wouldnt have to do it anyway. To be honest I think your just looking for reasons to refuse to accept that sinn feinn want a commision set up.

partyguinness

It should be pointed out that the killing of Gerry McCabe was a solo run by the guys in question. That is widely known and accepted.

It was not sanctioned by the IRA and they or Sinn Fein knew nothing about it.

There was also a personal element in that Gerry McCabe was not a very popular figure and personally known to the shooters. After the ceasefire in 1994, he was quite obnoxious and started throwing his weight around with known IRA members basically safe (well so he thought) in the knowledge that he cldnt be touched. I will repeat that the 2 guys convicted were on an unofficial solo run for their own personal use.

I am not in any way saying that he deserved it or anything of the sort but there were other factors which do not get widely published.

junder

steddyeddy wrote: »

Anyway Junder if sinn fein are playing this tactical game you suggest the british government would only have to agree to a commision wheter or not they aim to go through with it. that way sinn fein would back out and be exposed as liars and the british wouldnt have to do it anyway. To be honest I think your just looking for reasons to refuse to accept that sinn feinn want a commision set up.

You really don't have a clue about northern Irish politics in perticuler and politics in general do you. Next you will be telling me politicians tell the truth, little wonder your country is in the state it is. Sinn fein don't want a truth commission because while the may be safe from crimnal prosecution who is to say that one of the provies victims or victim family members won't take civil action against them, moreover it's not going to do sinn fiens credibility any good in the republic for the full horrors of what some of it's members got up to doing the troubles, this is espically true were saint Gerry and saint Martin are concerned. As for the British government, well no doubt they have thier own secrets to hide. Moreover they are really not going to do anything to undermine sinn fein ( by for example the HET enquiry team dragging Martin to court to answer the aforementioned case mentioned by me on this thread) after working so hard to get sinn fein ( and the DUP) right were they wanted them, namely at the center of government in northern ireland

junder

passarellaie wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Care to elaborate? Or are you just name calling because you don't like hearing alternative opinions?

Sinn Fein has publicly called for the truth commision but your mind is so twisted you imagine the English want it but wont grant it.
This is as equally delusional as your accusation Marin Mcguiness was responsible for two murders which you have not got a scintella of evidence for
As far as I am concrned this makes you at the very least a pathetic little man who would stoop to any low to prove whatever his notion of the day is

Cleary it's not me whose mind is twisted, were to start. Firstly I cleary stated that the British DO NOT want a truth commission niether (in my opinion) does sinn fein for reasons u have already stated. Moreover I have not accused Martin of murdering anybody that in fact was the ex-police officer who did that in that newspaper article.

FYI if you going to accuse somebody of something, it kind of helps to be accurate

Hannibal

Firstly Junder, Sinn Féin have been calling for an Independent International Truth Commission since 2008 on the conditions of:

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

The IRA has already issued an apology to all the non-combatants and their families that it killed or injured during the course of the Troubles.

The British government don't want a Truth Commission as they will never want to reveal the extent of their collusion with loyalists. What we know about collusion is only the tip of a very large iceberg

Son Of A Vidic

KeithAFC wrote: »

You might think it is, not everyone does think that. Some see it as terrorism, a war, Republican aggression, Bad Unionist rule etc.

Bad unionist rule? That's an almost harmless expression to use for a statelet which for many years, had its own little version of apartheid. Until of course those pesky Taigs started demanding their equal rights and messed it up for the ruling elite.

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

You really don't have a clue about northern Irish politics in perticuler and politics in general do you. Next you will be telling me politicians tell the truth, little wonder your country is in the state it is.

Sinn fein don't want a truth commission because while the may be safe from crimnal prosecution who is to say that one of the provies victims or victim family members won't take civil action against them, moreover it's not going to do sinn fiens credibility any good in the republic for the full horrors of what some of it's members got up to doing the troubles, this is espically true were saint Gerry and saint Martin are concerned. As for the British government, well no doubt they have thier own secrets to hide. Moreover they are really not going to do anything to undermine sinn fein ( by for example the HET enquiry team dragging Martin to court to answer the aforementioned case mentioned by me on this thread) after working so hard to get sinn fein ( and the DUP) right were they wanted them, namely at the center of government in northern ireland

Right Junder I was willing to be polite until you resorted to insults because I did not agree to your point. I fully get what you are trying to say its not hard to understand I just think its an opinion based on an ingrained hatred of all things republican. I think the point you constantly miss Is most people dont feel that level of hate and thats why were at different wavelenghts. A lot of times when some unionist members say all irish hate unionists I dont feel able to respond to that because I dont hate unionsts. They seem to be operating off a unfortunate level of hate throughout their lives.

In my view sinn fein have a lot less to lose than the British government. The ira had well esthablished connections with sinn fein. That is known what is not known is the extent of the british government's involvement in the north. Some one could just as easily take a civil action against the government.

junder

steddyeddy wrote: »

junder wrote: »

You really don't have a clue about northern Irish politics in perticuler and politics in general do you. Next you will be telling me politicians tell the truth, little wonder your country is in the state it is.

Sinn fein don't want a truth commission because while the may be safe from crimnal prosecution who is to say that one of the provies victims or victim family members won't take civil action against them, moreover it's not going to do sinn fiens credibility any good in the republic for the full horrors of what some of it's members got up to doing the troubles, this is espically true were saint Gerry and saint Martin are concerned. As for the British government, well no doubt they have thier own secrets to hide. Moreover they are really not going to do anything to undermine sinn fein ( by for example the HET enquiry team dragging Martin to court to answer the aforementioned case mentioned by me on this thread) after working so hard to get sinn fein ( and the DUP) right were they wanted them, namely at the center of government in northern ireland

Right Junder I was willing to be polite until you resorted to insults because I did not agree to your point. I fully get what you are trying to say its not hard to understand I just think its an opinion based on an ingrained hatred of all things republican. I think the point you constantly miss Is most people dont feel that level of hate and thats why were at different wavelenghts. A lot of times when some unionist members say all irish hate unionists I dont feel able to respond to that because I dont hate unionsts. They seem to be operating off a unfortunate level of hate throughout their lives.

In my view sinn fein have a lot less to lose than the British government. The ira had well esthablished connections with sinn fein. That is known what is not known is the extent of the british government's involvement in the north. Some one could just as easily take a civil action against the government.

You do a good job Of convincing me you Hate unionists judging by the language you use and the Generlizations you make. 'Hatred of all things republican' think my points have been quite specifically aimed at siin fein, all you now telling that the are tbe be all and end all of republicanism? Not a fan of the concept of 'truth commissions' as I don't think it will actully do the victims if the troubles any good, but in one sence it would be interesting to see certain posters try and justify the actions of PIRA once the true horrors of thier actions came out ( and yes I am fully aware that loyalist paramilitary did thier fair share of horrors, but then I am not trying to justify or excuse thier actions)

So tell me, is it all politicians that tell the truth or just sinn fein ones?

steddyeddy

junder wrote: »

You do a good job Of convincing me you Hate unionists judging by the language you use and the Generlizations you make. 'Hatred of all things republican' think my points have been quite specifically aimed at siin fein, all you now telling that the are tbe be all and end all of republicanism? Not a fan of the concept of 'truth commissions' as I don't think it will actully do the victims if the troubles any good, but in one sence it would be interesting to see certain posters try and justify the actions of PIRA once the true horrors of thier actions came out ( and yes I am fully aware that loyalist paramilitary did thier fair share of horrors, but then I am not trying to justify or excuse thier actions)

So tell me, is it all politicians that tell the truth or just sinn fein ones?

Well Junder you proved my point I do condem the bombing campaigns how could I not. Politicians rarely tell the truth but if your point is right about sinn fein then the british should only pretend to want a truth commsion that way if sinn fein are lying they would back out.