RIP Martin McGuinness

FrancieBrady

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So he wasn't both a terrorist in his youth and a peacemaker in his later years?

And you do the lazy thing again.
McGuinness seen himself as a soldier and a leader of his people. His soldiering is inseparable from what he did in his later life.

Losty Dublin

Witchie wrote: »

Rest in the peace that you gained for us. Thank you Mr McGuinness.

It has been one rough week for the Donegal/Derry area. Danielle McLoughlin being murdered in Goa, Ryan McBride dying so young and now Martin McGuinness. .

Dana must be getting pretty worried :pac:

Savman

Somehow I think there'll be a MOD WARNING POST #121 in the title before the end of the day...

rustynutz

ThisRegard wrote: »

He's the only self admitted former member of the IRA, at a pretty high level, who never got involved in violence?

If he was a high ranking member of the British army would you say the same? You can be sure a general in the British army has given orders that have caused the death of many. War is not pretty, never has been.

Martin McGuinness was one of the main architects of the peace process, and despite all the odds, managed to bring a lot of hardline republicans with him into politics. He was a leader, the likes of which we are unlikely to see again. I think history will be kind to the man.

RIP

AudreyHepburn

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you do the lazy thing again.
McGuinness seen himself as a soldier and a leader of his people. His soldiering is inseparable from what he did in his later life.

How is acknowledging that there were two vastly different sides to him lazy?

I never said the two inseparable, rather one followed as a result of the other.

I really think you need to stop your hero worshiping and take a reasonable honest look at the man as whole.

Moonfruit

RIP Martin McGuinness

Bubbaclaus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So he wasn't both a terrorist in his youth and a peacemaker in his later years?

What's your definition of a terrorist? You seem to be pushing hard to get this label attached to him.

Were Padraig Pearse and Michael Collins etc also terrorists?

steddyeddy

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Snooty tone of your question aside, all I would like is an acknowledgement that there were two sides to the man, the terrorist in his youth, the peacemaker later on.

I just think people are trying to ignore the early McGuinness, maybe because they find it too hard to look back on those difficult times.

No you can't ignore what he did. I don't agree with bombing campaigns. However you have to understand the British in NI caused just as much bloodshed and colluded with loyalist terrorists. It's not a goodies VS the baddies scenario.

Thomas__

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

And how should we phrase that, Audrey? A big, bold comma in the middle of the ''on the one hand, but on the other hand'' sentence? Just wondering what would satisfy you, as most of the commentators I have seen in this post have openly acknowledged the dichotomy and contradictions of the man's history. In spite of that history, there are a lot of people alive today in Northern Ireland that might not be if he had not worked very hard to make the Peace Process a reality. Would be tough to be a Heavenly judge in such a case...

Snooty tone of your question aside, all I would like is an acknowledgement that there were two sides to the man, the terrorist in his youth, the peacemaker later on.

I just think people are trying to ignore the early McGuinness, maybe because they find it too hard to look back on those difficult times.

One doesn´t has to stop at him, just go back some couple of decades and look at some of Irelands politicians who went down a similar road and became the leading figures of the Irish Free State and later Republic of Ireland. De Valera, Sean Lemass, both in the IRA, both in SF, both opposed to the Anglo-Irish-Treaty, the first more hold responsible for the Irish Civil War 1922-23 than the latter. Who would ever see them both as mere terrorists in the first place in the Ireland of today? I can´t think of even one Irish person who would dare to say so today, even less so during the times when they were in office.

Yes, one has to put the whole life into account with all the pros and cons.

FrancieBrady

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How is acknowledging that there were two vastly different sides to him lazy?

I never said the two inseparable, rather one followed as a result of the other.

I really think you need to stop your hero worshiping and take a reasonable honest look at the man as whole.

You want to separate his soldiering from his peacemaking so that you can come out with all the cosy warm patronising plaudits.

It is nonsense Audrey, there is no separation and you need to deal with the harsh realities of life. Sometimes, people have to do unsavory things in order to achieve a greater good. McGuinness knew what Sands knew that the rewards would be the laughter of theirs and others grandchildren.

I don't 'hero' worship anyone and I don't compartmentalise either just to make myself feel morally superior in some way.

AudreyHepburn

steddyeddy wrote: »

No you can't ignore what he did. I don't agree with bombing campaigns. However you have to understand the British in NI caused just as much bloodshed and colluded with loyalist terrorists. It's not a goodies VS the baddies scenario.

I do understand that, I've never said otherwise to be fair.

But there does seem to be a great number of people determined to ignore McGuinness's past or make it out to be something other than it was.

Thomas__

steddyeddy wrote: »

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Snooty tone of your question aside, all I would like is an acknowledgement that there were two sides to the man, the terrorist in his youth, the peacemaker later on.

I just think people are trying to ignore the early McGuinness, maybe because they find it too hard to look back on those difficult times.

No you can't ignore what he did. I don't agree with bombing campaigns. However you have to understand the British in NI caused just as much bloodshed and colluded with loyalist terrorists. It's not a goodies VS the baddies scenario.

The whole thing per se is very much complicated, too complicated for making simple judgements. It all gets down to the conclusion that all parts involved led a dirty war against each other.

Autonomous Cowherd

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How is acknowledging that there were two vastly different sides to him lazy?

I never said the two inseparable, rather one followed as a result of the other.

I really think you need to stop your hero worshiping and take a reasonable honest look at the man as whole.

I don't understand your constant request for balance ..almost as if it is not here in the thread. In the thread i am reading people can acknowledge the complexity of the situation, and are doing so, just as President Higgins has done, and other political leaders from all sides. I think if you read this thread from the beginning that, aside for a few strident remarks, which is to be expected, most people have been balanced in their appreciation of the undeniably great legacy of a complex political person.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

The British have zero clue about the history most of the time. The little Englander mentality is out in force today.

Do you really need to spout this bollocks all the time?

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

You have to laugh at the British establishment being interviewed and calling McGuiness a coward and a murderer when the Brits were sending death squads to NI to murder innocent Catholics. McGuinness must have done something right to upset so many horrible people who were stuck up Thatchers hole.

I would hazard a guess and say that the Prime Minister is the epitome of the "British establishment, wouldn't you?

Here's what she has said https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-ministers-statement-on-the-death-of-martin-mcguinness

Prime Minister Theresa May said:

First and foremost, my thoughts are with the family of Martin McGuinness at this sad time.

While I can never condone the path he took in the earlier part of his life, Martin McGuinness ultimately played a defining role in leading the Republican movement away from violence. In doing so, he made an essential and historic contribution to the extraordinary journey of Northern Ireland from conflict to peace.

While we certainly didn’t always see eye-to-eye even in later years, as deputy First Minister for nearly a decade he was one of the pioneers of implementing cross community power sharing in Northern Ireland. He understood both its fragility and its precious significance and played a vital part in helping to find a way through many difficult moments.

At the heart of it all was his profound optimism for the future of Northern Ireland – and I believe we should all hold fast to that optimism today.

I agree wholeheartedly with her. Martin McGuinness came across as the sort of guy I could have a pint and a discussion with. He was also a big cricket fan, so I am sure we could talk about more than just politics.

RIP Martin.

rustynutz

Thomas__ wrote: »

What more could they have done than what they have done, eh? NI and the Troubles was a domestic matter for the Brits in the first place, not that of the Republic of Ireland, unless Ireland had taken on the UK and that way had certainly not led to what is now in NI.

Always sneering at former leading politicians from the Republic and dismissing that it was Mr Ahern who was Taoiseach when the GFA was worked out and signed. That sneering doesn´t make any sense to me, it is just the usual claptrap from the usual die-hard Shinners who always know better but never did anything better than those who were at the place when history was made. Surely, the signing of the GFA was a moment of history for the whole of the Island of Ireland.

The IRA took on the brits because the Irish government hadn't the balls to. Republicans in the North were abandoned by the Irish government, families being burned out of there homes, being treated as second class citizens, no employment. While I don't agree with terrorism or the killing of innocent people, the IRA was a necessary evil in NI at the time.

Noddyholder

[QUOTE=Thomas__;102978697 NI and the Troubles was a domestic matter for the Brits in the first place, not that of the Republic of Ireland[/B], unless Ireland had taken on the UK and that way had certainly not led to what is now in NI.[/QUOTE]


Really ? For a poster who usually says knowledgeable posts, that above is a ridiculous statement.

AudreyHepburn

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What's your definition of a terrorist? You seem to be pushing hard to get this label attached to him.

Were Padraig Pearse and Michael Collins etc also terrorists?

Some-one who uses violence to cause terror in a effort to make people capitulate to their demands is how I define a terrorist.

I suppose in a sense Pearse, Collins et al were to some extend but the IRA/IRB of their days bears no relation to the modern one of McGuinness imo.

FrancieBrady

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I do understand that, I've never said otherwise to be fair.

But there does seem to be a great number of people determined to ignore McGuinness's past or make it out to be something other than it was.

Who is ignoring his past?
Designating it, ala Thatcher (who was secretly trying to negotiating with him) as terrorism (while her own troops were engaged in terrorising a community) is partisan nonsense.
The very act of compartmentalising this man's life is a clear sign of that effort. Just stop.

AudreyHepburn

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

I don't understand your constant request for balance ..almost as if it is not here in the thread. In the thread i am reading people can acknowledge the complexity of the situation, and are doing so, just as President Higgins has done, and other political leaders from all sides. I think if you read this thread from the beginning that, aside for a few strident remarks, which is to be expected, most people have been balanced in their appreciation of the undeniably great legacy of a complex political person.

I did read it from the beginning and it's very hard to see anything past the praise for McGuinness work in the Peace Process (which he absolutely deserves) and those determined to make his early years into something heroic.

RustyNut

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Some-one who uses violence to cause terror in a effort to make people capitulate to their demands is how I define a terrorist.

How do you think people should resist an occupying military force who "uses violence to cause terror in a effort to make people capitulate to their demands" ?

Autonomous Cowherd

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I did read it from the beginning and it's very hard to see anything past the praise for McGuinness work in the Peace Process (which he absolutely deserves) and those determined to make his early years into something heroic.

Okay, well we are reading the thread differently then. I also think the Irish impulse is not to put the boot in directly on the death of another, but rather to emphasize the good the person has done in this world. Almost a folk superstition I suppose, a recognition that we are all to some degree or another made up of dark and light. At the end of the day many more innocent people would be dead today were it not for his work in the past 25 years.
Peace out.

Bubbaclaus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Some-one who uses violence to cause terror in a effort to make people capitulate to their demands is how I define a terrorist.

So you would consider the British Army's presence in Northern Ireland to be a terrorist attack also then?

AudreyHepburn

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Okay, well we are reading the thread differently then. I also think the Irish impulse is not to put the boot in directly on the death of another, but rather to emphasize the good the person has done in this world. Almost a folk superstition I suppose, a recognition that we are all to some degree or another made up of dark and light. At the end of the day many more innocent people would be dead today were it not for his work in the past 25 years.
Peace out.

I agree with all of this and never once said otherwise to be honest.

lawred2

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

Who is asking you to?

The tone of a lot reactions here and in the media suggest to me that a lot of people feel we should gloss over his past and be concerned only with the peace process etc.

So nobody then.

AudreyHepburn

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So you would consider the British Army's presence in Northern Ireland to be a terrorist attack also then?

Their presence in itself, no. Some of their actions whilst there, yes of course.

But two wrongs don't make a right.

Alf Stewart.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

dragging British policemen out a car and beating them to death in front the media just because they drove the wrong through a funeral

The weren't policemen, they were SAS members, part of an elite military unit, who have done, and continue to do similar, and worse acts of atrocities as the Provos ever have, to this very day.

They died in active service, caught carrying out a covert operation.

Get it straight please.

LordSutch

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So he wasn't both a terrorist in his youth and a peacemaker in his later years?

What's your definition of a terrorist? You seem to be pushing hard to get this label attached to him.

He led his life in two halves, and in the 2nd half of his life he wasn't involved in Terrorism nor the support of Terrorism, indeed in the 2nd half of his life he became a reformed person, a politician who turned his back on terrorism.

circadian

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think you'll find on this thread that people are saying the opposite - that McGuinness is a heroic freedom fighter and the British army are evil murders.

Which is also completely incorrect of course.

I guess Bloody Sunday was completely justified since it was state sanctioned then?

I grew up in the Bogside in the 80's. I was never a republican nor a supporter of the IRA but to miss out on all the nuances of what it was like paints everything in black and white, which it most certainly wasn't.

Edit: It's a big loss to the community as people who both loathed and loved Martin recognised that his coming to the table with Hume forced the hands of the Unionists to talk, especially since the British government wanted nothing more than a peaceful move forward and some semblance of stabilisation. For that he will most likely be remembered in generations to come.

FrancieBrady

lawred2 wrote: »

So nobody then.

'Gloss over' says the gal who wants to gloss over what McGuinness never glossed over.


Some people should just say nothing today.

murpho999

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He did what the republic SHOULD have been doing and was constitutionally mandated to do - protect Irish people.
The IRA did not want to get involved in 69 but were forced to by continued state backed oppression and aggression.

So do you mean that Ireland should have sent troops to Northern Ireland in 1969 and effectively declare war on the UK?

That would have gone well.