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