RIP Martin McGuinness

AudreyHepburn · 21-03-2017 9:10am

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__ · 21-03-2017 9:12am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:12am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:12am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:12am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:12am

[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 · 21-03-2017 9:13am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:14am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:15am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:18am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:21am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:22am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:23am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:23am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:23am

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. · 21-03-2017 9:24am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:25am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:26am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:26am

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 · 21-03-2017 9:27am

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.

PhuckHugh · 21-03-2017 9:28am

LordSutch wrote: »

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.

Well, when the British government and the Loyalist paramilitaries said they'd refrain from terrorism, it helped Martin life a far more peaceful life.

Thomas__ · 21-03-2017 9:28am

Noddyholder wrote: »

[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.

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

My remark was clearly aimed at the abilities the Republic of Ireland had and did not have to interfere in the Troubles of NI, still a part of the UK. Maybe this didn´t come across that clearly as my Intention was to point that out. The Republic of Ireland could use her influence on NI matters only via the diplomatic channels with the UK govts and later on in direct contacts with SF which represented the IRA in negotiations and McGuinness was such a Person sent on behalf of the IRA as representative of SF to engage in sectret negotiations with the Brits. I just like to remind you on the fact that for a Long time, the Irish govt avoided direct contacts with SF and preferred to talk to the SDLP representatives on matters concerning the situation in NI. In other words, the Republic of Ireland was a parttaker in NI matters by agreement from the UK govt because they realised that they cannot solve that Problem without bringing the Republic of Ireland into talks, but not by announcing activities like Jack Lynch was trying to take up in his speech on TV in August 1969, a speech that in some ways led to the arms trial on Charles J. Haughey. In the end, it all ended up with refugee camps along the inner-Irish border to give shelter for those who fled NI at the start of the troubles.

That is the angle from which my previous comment was written.

Skrynesaver · 21-03-2017 9:30am

bubblypop wrote: »

Considering Norman tebbit and his wife were both injured in the Brighton bombing, I'd cut him some slack here.
Not sure i could ever forgive anyone involved in an organisation that did that to me.

Therein lies the problem he helped solve, if you can't forgive what I do in response to the unforgivable things done to me and mine, we take an eye for an eye till we're all blind

j8wk2feszrnpao · 21-03-2017 9:32am

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Therein lies the problem he helped solve, if you can't forgive what I do in response to the unforgivable things done to me and mine, we take an eye for an eye till we're all blind

You can not forgive someone, while at the same time not enact revenge.

FrancieBrady · 21-03-2017 9:34am

murpho999 wrote: »

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.

The republic, by inaction, allowed the vacuum to form. Into that vacuum stepped the IRA (and Lynch knew they would, so no hiding from the consequences) and the rest is history, a sad and tragic history.

If you can show me any state in the world that refused to take action because 'it might not go well', then I will show you a failed state and a useless one.
Sometimes, the only moral choice you have is to act and that is what McGuinness and the IRA did.

Thomas__ · 21-03-2017 9:35am

rustynutz wrote: »

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.

I´ve noticed such comments for many times, too many times and every time someone posted the like of that, he or she always omitted not only the consequences such an undertaking beared with it, but more to the Point, simply dismissing the ability of the Irish Defence Forces to take on a NATO Country with a professional army trained to go into combat. That is quite different from what the IDF is trained for and the tasks they got assigned to in serving as peace keeping forces by the UNO abroad. If the Irish Military had interfered in NI by crossing the border, it might all had ended in disaster.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 21-03-2017 9:37am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The republic, by inaction, allowed the vacuum to form. Into that vacuum stepped the IRA (and Lynch knew they would, so no hiding from the consequences) and the rest is history, a sad and tragic history.

If you can show me any state in the world that refused to take action because 'it might not go well', then I will show you a failed state and a useless one.
Sometimes, the only moral choice you have is to act and that is what McGuinness and the IRA did.

"might not go well" in this case would have meant war between the UK and Ireland. That would have been the actions of a failed state.

Don't Chute! · 21-03-2017 9:39am

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.

Haven't you heard Audrey? The members simply will not countenance any criticism of the cult. It's not how they do things in Murder Inc.

PhuckHugh · 21-03-2017 9:40am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The republic, by inaction, allowed the vacuum to form. Into that vacuum stepped the IRA (and Lynch knew they would, so no hiding from the consequences) and the rest is history, a sad and tragic history.

If you can show me any state in the world that refused to take action because 'it might not go well', then I will show you a failed state and a useless one.
Sometimes, the only moral choice you have is to act and that is what McGuinness and the IRA did.

Exactly - We, in the Republic, turned our backs on our northern brethren after partition and left them to the baying loyalist mobs and their B-Special enforcers ... Not to mind the rotten political system and every day discrimination.. It's shameful what we did and then you get clowns who grew up in comfort and safety spitting on the likes of McGuinness because they've been educated through Montrose and the middle-class broadsheet conservative spin. You really couldn't make it up.

21-03-2017 9:42am

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

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.

I don't think it matters really does it?
The video of this attack remains one of the most horrific i have ever seen. I don't believe anyone could watch it without being seriously emotionally disturbed.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 21-03-2017 9:43am

PhuckHugh wrote: »

Exactly - We, in the Republic, turned our backs on our northern brethren after partition and left them to the baying loyalist mobs and their B-Special enforcers ... Not to mind the rotten political system and every day discrimination.. It's shameful what we did and then you get clowns who grew up in comfort and safety spitting on the likes of McGuinness because they've been educated through Montrose and the middle-class broadsheet conservative spin. You really couldn't make it up.

I don't remember stopping you from picking up your pitchfork and heading north to face the British army.

murpho999 · 21-03-2017 9:43am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The republic, by inaction, allowed the vacuum to form. Into that vacuum stepped the IRA (and Lynch knew they would, so no hiding from the consequences) and the rest is history, a sad and tragic history.

If you can show me any state in the world that refused to take action because 'it might not go well', then I will show you a failed state and a useless one.
Sometimes, the only moral choice you have is to act and that is what McGuinness and the IRA did.

The Republic had no jurisdiction over the North and therefore could only apply diplomatic political pressure. Which they did.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that we should have sent troops in and therefore gone to war?

Thomas__ · 21-03-2017 9:43am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

I prefer to have the decency to wait until the body of this man is buried, let some time pass until the consideration and judgement of his legacy might commence.

I´d assume that there might be some documents, still locked up as confidencial classyfied which might give some aspects to his whole political life and which have yet to be disclosed. It is still too early by now.

AudreyHepburn · 21-03-2017 9:44am

I think I'm going to bow out of this conversation now, it's just going around in circles and it's seems there is just no reasoning with some posters.

I apologize for any problems or insults my comments might have caused, I clearly annoyed some posters and that was never my intention.

I won't apologize for nor change my opinions on Martin McGuinness but I am sorry for riling people up.

RIP Martin.

PhuckHugh · 21-03-2017 9:46am

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I don't remember stopping you from picking up your pitchfork and heading north to face the British army.

I'm talking about the 20s - 60s and the conditions that led to the conflict .. and well you know it.

Thomas__ · 21-03-2017 9:52am

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

They are the very grassroots of modern Irish Republicanism, carried by SF to this very day. You can´t separate them from one another, it´d be like Labour abandoning their grassroots in order to gain votes and SF is never going to do that. Younger generations, most those who grew up in the Republic of Ireland might have a more different view on that, but lesser so those who have some recollections of the troubles from the CNR community. But SF is not always appearing in the same ways and cloak in the Republic like they do in NI.

Thomas__ · 21-03-2017 9:54am

PhuckHugh wrote: »

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I don't remember stopping you from picking up your pitchfork and heading north to face the British army.

I'm talking about the 20s - 60s and the conditions that led to the conflict .. and well you know it.

Some author wrote that it all started in the year 1169 AD, the very year that created "the Irish Problem".

j8wk2feszrnpao · 21-03-2017 9:55am

PhuckHugh wrote: »

I'm talking about the 20s - 60s and the conditions that led to the conflict .. and well you know it.

Well then it's not 'We, in the Republic'.
As for what 'they' did in the 20s - 60s, it's very easy to judge them now and throw a few spits of your own at them. Are you saying they should have gone to war or an alternative method?

Noddyholder · 21-03-2017 9:57am

Kyle Paisley, son of the late first minister, Ian Paisley

"My father and Martin McGuinness did a great deal of good together. A man cannot be defined by what he is in the present only or past only. He is defined by all that he is, both past and present. We can't forget Martin's IRA past, but he did do a lot right, too.

"Our relationship did draw criticism and you have to understand where victims are coming from. However, in order for proper progress you have got to push ahead and be brave. Martin and my father were called the 'Chuckle Brothers'. My dad just got on with business.

"Their relationship in office was good and it was good outside office. They stayed in touch. He was genuinely sorry for us when we lost our dad."

That be my opinion & now I out of here.

elefant · 21-03-2017 10:01am

Surely it's disingenuous to try and argue that Martin McGuinness was not a terrorist. He was a leader in a terrorist organisation.

What am I missing here?

Jawgap · 21-03-2017 10:03am

elefant wrote: »

Surely it's disingenuous to try and argue that Martin McGuinness was not a terrorist. He was a leader in a terrorist organisation.

What am I missing here?

His halo

PhuckHugh · 21-03-2017 10:05am

Elaina Uninterested Barmaid wrote: »

Well then it's not 'We, in the Republic'.
As for what 'they' did in the 20s - 60s, it's very easy to judge them now and throw a few spits of your own at them. Are you saying they should have gone to war or an alternative method?

We completely turned our back on the nationalist in the north and let them at the mercy of an establishment and almost terrorist state that despised them. You then have clowns coming in here calling nationalists who stood up for their community scumbags and the likes... I merely pointed out that's it's rich spitting on these people when growing up in the comfort of the south... War, i'm not so sure about, but we needed to do more to protect our own and we didn't... Our conservative media and state broadcaster did little to help matters either.

The Assistinator · 21-03-2017 10:07am

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.

Without Ahern the good Friday agreement was still possible without Martin onside it was not.
I expect nothing else than ahern to accept credit for the gfa, more claptrap from the die hard Fianna Fáil supporters.
Just to add what did the previous governments do to help the plight of there citizens up north.

FrancieBrady · 21-03-2017 10:07am

elefant wrote: »

What am I missing here?

A Maggie Thatcher wig?

elefant · 21-03-2017 10:12am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Maggie Thatcher wig?

I'd genuinely like to hear.

You don't think he was a terrorist. Why not?

And I'm not saying this in an effort to tarnish the man's legacy. I think history will remember him in a positive light for the important work on peace he did in politics in his later life.

FrancieBrady · 21-03-2017 10:13am

munstermagic11 wrote: »

"might not go well" in this case would have meant war between the UK and Ireland. That would have been the actions of a failed state.

Why?
The state was formed because men like McGuinness and women went to 'war' with the British.

Charlie Flanagan this morning was funny, like some here, in his compartmentalising.
He was making the trite point that McGuinness stopped being a 'militant republican' and became a politician like him', of course ignoring the blatant fact that Charlie was able to become a non militant politician precisely because his forebears did the 'militant' work.

The hypocrisy and craw thumping today is actually hilarious.

Noddyholder · 21-03-2017 10:17am

elefant wrote: »

Surely it's disingenuous to try and argue that Martin McGuinness was not a terrorist. He was a leader in a terrorist organisation.

What am I missing here?

Your missing, in how do you define terrorism , Nelson Mandela was a terrorist ? in the eyes of the US & Brit government's up till 2008.

The stern gang, which fought against the British in Palestine before Israel was created. They were terrorist's ?

The boar war etc etc

And lets not forget our own Michael Collins etc etc

And then you have Syria, which every side supporting other government's terrorist's .

It boils down to which side your on...

FrancieBrady · 21-03-2017 10:18am

elefant wrote: »

I'd genuinely like to hear.

You don't think he was a terrorist. Why not?

And I'm not saying this in an effort to tarnish the man's legacy. I think history will remember him in a positive light for the important work on peace he did in politics in his later life.

McGuinness was in conflict/war with those he believed were terrorising his community. And they were in 'fact' doing everything that the IRA and SF claimed they were over the years, from taking a side in the conflict to engaging in covert terror acts.
On this day of his death that is no longer happening, and his community have parity of esteem and equality.

Call him what you want, who really cares. :rolleyes:

steddyeddy · 21-03-2017 10:19am

elefant wrote: »

Surely it's disingenuous to try and argue that Martin McGuinness was not a terrorist. He was a leader in a terrorist organisation.

What am I missing here?

Of course he was. As was Nelson Mandela. Terrorist as a word does not characterise the sum worth of either person.

PhuckHugh · 21-03-2017 10:19am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why?
The state was formed because men like McGuinness and women went to 'war' with the British.

Charlie Flanagan this morning was funny, like some here, in his compartmentalising.
He was making the trite point that McGuinness stopped being a 'militant republican' and became a politician like him', of course ignoring the blatant fact that Charlie was able to become a non militant politician precisely because his forebears did the 'militant' work.

The hypocrisy and craw thumping today is actually hilarious.

That's a important point that those throwing the stones usually miss - Martin was no different to the 'heroes' that founded the state that we celebrate - In many ways, FF/FG have far more blood on their hands when you think of the civil war and the murder of Irish citizens carried out by both sides - Men, women and children

RIP Martin McGuinness

Comments