PhuckHugh wrote: » 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
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.
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.
PhuckHugh wrote: » 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. Pure WUM.
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.
Jelle1880 wrote: » It seems to be a common tactic. Mention the atrocities that were done under his command and you're bound to get a response about the Brits. Because that somehow makes it ok I guess ? I think Hitchens summed it up perfectly about Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams, and it probably works for McGuinness too:
PhuckHugh wrote: » Pure WUM.
PhuckHugh wrote: » That's your view. Plenty others, including myself, will regard him as a hero. Nelson Mandela was full of praise for Martin and Gerry .. Gerry acting as a guard of honour for Mandela's funeral -- that's the esteem these men are held in. If we had politicians with half his character in the south we'd be a fine country.
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.
Zebra3 wrote: » Following the death of Martin McGuinness, I'd like to hear from the white supremacists of the British Establishment. :rolleyes:
In 1973, he was convicted by the Republic of Ireland's Special Criminal Court, after being arrested near a car containing 250 pounds (110 kg) of explosives and nearly 5,000 rounds of ammunition. He refused to recognise the court, and was sentenced to six months imprisonment. In court, he declared his membership of the Provisional IRA without equivocation: "We have fought against the killing of our people... I am a member of Óglaigh na hÉireann and very, very proud of it".
Fratton Fred wrote: » telling someone to get it straight, usually involves you being correct. They were not SAS, they were Royal Corp of Signals
steddyeddy wrote: » Very few unionists have come out with a statement.
FTA69 wrote: » Norman Tebitt was on Twitter whinging about him. I imagine you'll have a few in the British gutter Press as well up to the same.
Alf Stewart. wrote: » The British Army denied that they were SAS. That said, the official line trotted out didn't make them any less legitimate targets to the provos regardless. Undercover British soldiers, armed at a provisional IRA funeral? They just happened to accidentally stray into the funeral? Yeah right.
[Deleted User] wrote: » There's enormously admirable integrity right there. I'd trust somebody with such conviction, courage and honesty.
Fratton Fred wrote: » no, they didn't need to deny they were SAS, that was a story made up by the men that stripped, tortured, beat, shot and stabbed them. They were not in uniform (because it was kind of unsafe driving around in an army uniform) and were armed because they were soldiers. They weren't even supposed to be there, they had only recently arrived in the north and got lost. They were told to avoid the area.
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.