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.
PhuckHugh wrote: » 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.
munstermagic11 wrote: » I think their may have been one person who stepped over the line on McGuniness; largely it's been one of respect in the thread towards him. You may call it standing up for a community, but bombing innocent people isn't viewed in a similar manner by everyone. Again, what action did you want them to take? And what did you want the media and RTE to do exactly? You now have the benefit of hindsight that they didn't, but you don't suggest anything.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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 wrote: » Of course he was. As was Nelson Mandela. Terrorist as a word does not characterise the sum worth of either person.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Jack Lynch KNEW what would happen if they did nothing in 69. They did nothing.
elefant wrote: » Being in conflict with the British government I can understand. Bombing supermarkets and pubs full of civilians is another story. To me, that is terrorism. I doubt I'm alone in being torn in terms of hugely respecting the work he did as a politician, while hating some of the acts the organisation he played a leadership role in committed. As for your closing comment; I neither expect nor hope that you care what I think. I'm just trying to understand the nuances of some very black/white thinking around man with many tones of grey.
FrancieBrady wrote: » As is bombing cities from 20,000 feet - terrorism. The British are spending billions on a couple of aircraft carriers furnished with state of the art military jets. They are not designed to shower the communities they visit with sweets. They are designed to terrorise others into submission to the will of those who own the carriers. Are they 'terrorists'? Nobody is condoning what happened when the north was allowed to erupt, but cop on with the trite descriptors.
elefant wrote: » I completely agree. And I'm not trying to reduce the man to decisions he made while in his youth. I'm just trying to get a sense of where each side is coming from, because the extremities in the opinions that are held in this case are interesting.
munstermagic11 wrote: » And they should have done what?
sonofenoch wrote: » Always confused me why the likes of Pearse and Connolly are lauded as heroes by conservative Ireland but the same people vilify McGuinness and Adams......is it because as Tubridy put it in his interview with with Adams 'a different time'
bubblypop wrote: » 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.
elefant wrote: » Cop on with the whataboutery.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There are other threads discussing that, re-open them and discuss. What is abundantly clear is that the Irish government knew the vacuum was forming from their in-action and STILL did nothing.
The Assistinator 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. 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.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You don't like your 'definitions' applied to others? Quelle suprise. Ask the people rained on by the bombs for their definitions of who the terrorists are? It's a useless meaningless term made popular by Maggie Thatcher while she was secretly trying to negotiate a deal with the very people she publicly claimed she would never deal with. You might have trouble spotting the hypocrites but I don't.
Thomas__ wrote: » What means did the previous governments of the Republic of Ireland had to help in the first place? Btw, I am neither for FF, FG, SF or Labour. I judge the People by their characters and achievements, and I even hold some respect for Charles J. Haughey, in spite the fact that there are many Irish People who look at him as and call him a crook. My political leaning is centre-left and superfically saying, I consider myself to have more in common with the in 2015 founded Social Democrats than any other political Party in the Republic of Ireland. In the end of the day, it counts more to me what every single politician has done for the good of the Republic of Ireland in the first place, cos that was their Domain to give their best efforts. Just that there are hardly any Irish People I have come across so far who always find one or another Irish politician to project their animosity on and loath about, doesn´t influences me at all. Every Taoiseach, since the Irish Free State was established, contributed to the future of this country. One never held that office and is still at the top of all the great Irishmen in this islands history and that is Michael Collins. Close behind Comes Arthur Griffith, Sean Lemass, then Jack Lynch and to some extend C. J. Haughey. I also have some respect for Reynolds (though a tad too weak imo), Berty Ahern (not convicted for any wrong doing). I pity Cowen (he had to pick up the pieces after Ahern resigned), but I don´t find Kenny that worse like others see him (had to bring Ireland through the financial crisis with the hardships that came along, but which other countries also had to endure). The many of them being from FF, it´s not my fault that they were cos, see it as it was, they always got their votes from the Irish electorate. The very only Irish politician I can´t stand is De Valera (too cosy with the Catholic Church and imo partly too stubborn on the Republic when there was no way to achieve it and he knew that perfectly well himself, and partly to weak to prevail against the other die-hards on the anti-treaty side like Brugha). He also was the one Holding Ireland backwards for decades. Lemass brought Ireland into modernity, Haughey set the seeds to bring Ireland to the 21st Century and Ahern reaped what was coming out of it and there hadn´t been the period of the "Celtic Tiger" without the work of his predecessors. Well, I am not saying that every man hadn´t his faults, but what Counts in the end is what they achieved. Mrs McGuinness never had the means to do likewise, cos he grew up and lived in a different country, but he achieved, together with others, peace in NI and if there is any legacy on his part, this is the very thing on his side which he´ll always be remembered as being part of. But also his way of conduct regarding his IRA past, on which - I think - he wasn´t quite that frank and admitting. That part was the very reason for why he lost to Higgins in the last presidential election. I really find it curious to notice how many people are jumping to defend McGuinness when it comes to his life and doings, the so called "failure" of the Republic to stand up for the Irish people in NI but on the other hand, reading posts from people who are uttery opposed to any chance of re-unification with NI. Well, I know, the political Standing is always leading the way of argumentation, one is either pro or contra. There is rarely something inbetween with a balance upon which one can build a better future. That´s a pity.
elefant wrote: » Your post was all about 'what about the British?'. I'm not asking about them; call them what you want, nobody cares. I'm asking about Martin McGuinness. Both sides terrorising each other doesn't make both sides equally right. For all the perceptiveness, you seem to think I'm posting as some sort of defender of the British empire.
The British laws of libel forbid me to tell what I heard when I was a young reporter in the pubs and back streets of Belfast, but I'll put it like this: Both Paisley and Adams know very well of things that happened that should never have happened. And both of them, in order to arrive at that smug power-sharing press conference, have had to arrange to seem adequately uninformed about such horrid past events. Both have been photographed carrying coffins at political funerals—funerals that were at one time the main cultural activity in each of their "communities." One day, their private role in filling those coffins will be fully exposed. In the meantime, they are the recognized and designated peacemakers. If you can bring yourself to applaud this, you are a masochist clapping a well-matched pair of sadists. How can Paisley and Adams face the families of the victims and tell them that it was all for nothing and less than nothing? The answer to this poignant question is that they don't have to, because we are all so pathetically grateful for their forbearance that we are now willing to hand them control of the region that they have so desolated and profaned.
JayZeus wrote: » It's sometimes sad when someone dies. Sometimes it's sad because of the character of the person, the circumstances of their passing or the loss their family will feel. Martin McGuinness' death may be some of those things to some people but to me the greatest sadness comes from seeing so many Irish people praise his efforts for peace and attempts to portray him as some kind of folk hero. He should be remembered for what he was, a paramilitary commander who committed murder in the name of the nationalist movement. A man with the cold and cruel ability to blow up pubs, hotels and market squares no matter who may be there at the time. Martin McGuinness ran out of time leading and directing a violent, bloody, murderous campaign using normal everyday people as pawns, blowing them to pieces, maiming and mentally scarring the survivors and their families in the cold and calculating process. He had no choice to make. Peace was on the cards, with or without him. He was the man in the seat at the time but it wasn't his decision, when the community he supposedly represented wanted something his guns and bombs couldn't deliver. He went to his grave knowing more than he told about the victims of his violence and that's unforgivable. The years he spent in politics do not wash the blood from his hands. Never forget that. He wasn't a good man, let alone a hero.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7ee04830a36fdfd2a86ec036ec5de104.svg)
