nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

RIP Martin McGuinness

thee glitz

Former Deputy First Minister of NI Martin McGuinness has died. May he RIP.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0321/861287-martin-mcguinness-death/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Fleawuss

One of the great truths that Sinn Fein have put forward is that if you are going to look at violence, look at all sides in the conflict. There is no "superior" moral position that Ulster Unionism or Toryism starts from. By it's very existence and in the manner of its existence the six counties was a government run terrorist institution. The pompous tones of the Tory commentators presume that they start from the moral high ground. Their presumption and their arrogance are always in inverse proportion to their capacity for understanding and their appetite for justice. They really need to be told, not by SF, but by a republican (because SF do not own that term) that their inability to see beyond the role McGuinness felt obliged to play with the PIRA says a great deal about how little they have moved. Unlike him.

andekwarhola

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In amongst the trite moralising there is there support for what Tebbit had to say today?

Are you asking me to give him a pass because he was one of thousands of victims?

Sorry, no can do.

You and your ilk love griping about 'themuns'. And you'll be doing it until the grave.

Thank fcuk the likes of McGuiness and Adams were in the driving seat (and not the armchair).

[Deleted User]

One of the biggest criticisms that are coming from the relatives of the victims of the IRA, is that McGuinness didn't do more to apologise to them and to assist with explanations around the various actions of the IRA through the years, especially concerning the "missing".

McGuinness didn't have much time to do anything about that towards the end of his life when illness hit- I wonder is Gerry Adams considering his legacy at this point and exploring what he might do differently in the months and years ahead to influence that.

FrancieBrady

cnoc wrote: »

Who is Áine English?

The lady that presents the RTE radio drive time show. Maybe I got the name wrong?

bigbrotherfan

I've had more time for McGuinness than Adams. He apparently received praise from Ian Paisley's widow today, which shows that he achieved cross party recognition, in recent years. I'm not a fan of Sinn Féin but in recent years, McGuinness has achieved a status I would not have expected 20 years ago. I would like to think that while the awful events of the troubles happened and should never be forgotten, that he will also be remembered for the work he has done in the past 20 years, since the Good Friday Agreement.

FrancieBrady

andekwarhola wrote: »

I roundly dislike people like Tebbit as much as the next person but his wife was left disabled after the Brighton Bombing.

We're hardly going to turn to him for a balanced quote, are we?

Some people in here ironically cheerleading McGuiness might be better off making the brave intellectual and political journey that he did.

In amongst the trite moralising there is there support for what Tebbit had to say today?

Are you asking me to give him a pass because he was one of thousands of victims?

Sorry, no can do.

cavan4sam

Rip Martin
Your legacy has left a better country for all and your dream of a united ireland is not far away
Tiocfaidh Ar La

cnoc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have to say it was great to hear Pierce Doherty put Aine English back in her box when she tried the 'man with two lives' bollixology.

Who is Áine English?

andekwarhola

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here's the lovely Norman spreading aspersions about the testimony of the accusers of his mate Jimmy Saville,
In fact, try and read the whole article without getting nauseous would be my challenge! :rolleyes:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/15/norman-tebbit-interview

I roundly dislike people like Tebbit as much as the next person but his wife was left disabled after the Brighton Bombing.

We're hardly going to turn to him for a balanced quote, are we?

Some people in here ironically cheerleading McGuiness might be better off making the brave intellectual and political journey that he did.

Fratton Fred

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Seen the BBC's report, the mainland uk one not the NI one. A reporter asked the father of a bombing victim, i think it was Parry, whether he considered McGuinness a friend?

His answer was, surprise surprise, no.

Top class journalism there from the BBC. The same BBC that runs numerous segments almost daily on the BBC World News channel about "What can the media do... better?/ to make people trust us again?/ to not alienate viewers?

I swear the more and more I watch major news networks during big events the more I understand why Trump's "dumb media" line resonates.

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Soldiers fathering entire families linked to suspected IRA members while "on deployment".

Cant be to sure if he's in the RA? Well he does have a sister so its time to take one for Queen and Country and get you're weapon out..

100 percent taxpayer funded. Got to give it to the Brits, they're pragmatic at the very least.

When I read your first post, I thought you were simply mistaken. when I read your second, I realised you were being deliberately obtuse.

Please take time and effort to listen to the whole interview. there is another tv interview on the BBC website as well

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39337136

FrancieBrady

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Seen the BBC's report, the mainland uk one not the NI one. A reporter asked the father of a bombing victim, i think it was Parry, whether he considered McGuinness a friend?

His answer was, surprise surprise, no.

Top class journalism there from the BBC. The same BBC that runs numerous segments almost daily on the BBC World News channel about "What can the media do... better?/ to make people trust us again?/ to not alienate viewers?

I swear the more and more I watch major news networks during big events the more I understand why Trump's "dumb media" line resonates.

Have to say it was great to hear Pierce Doherty put Aine English back in her box when she tried the 'man with two lives' bollixology.

stockdam

flutered wrote: »

stockdam wrote: »

Ok by that reasoning then, I can understand. I knew idiots who joined paramilitaries and one who was arrested and put into the Maze. I had the same upbringing and "repression" but never for one minute thought of resorting to violence. Neither Adams or McGuinness nor any other paramilitary had more right than I had to feel they they needed to kill anyone.........it was just wrong.

what would have been the result of things if the burning of streets of houses in nationalist areas had been allowed to continue, the b men the army etc were not interested, circumstanses alter cases, castro mandella etc, the we had the opposite from peron for one

Hard to say but both sides were at it and people on both sides had to leave their houses. People who had lived side-by-side for years suddenly had to leave. Tensions at that time were very high. As usual when people go out onto the streets, the yobs start to escalate things and they turn violent.........both sides blame each other.

The security forces were badly trained and equipped and didn't help to quell the violence. The B-Specials were one-sided.
Then when bullets start to be fired things started to get out of hand.

The whole thing should have been handled better.

FrancieBrady

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you are unable to see the difference between a force generally attempting to adhere to the conventions of warfare and a force which attempts to just generally cause mayhem, we're not going to have a fruitful discussion.

Ah bless.
Are these the 'conventions of warfare' invented in part by the British at the foundation of the UN? Or Marquis of Queensbury style ones maybe?

The conventions of warfare that Britain among others ignore when it suits them?

I agree, we probably aren't going to have a fruitful discussion.

I don't distinguish between the forces involved in the conflict here, they all used terror when it suited them.

Jamiekelly

steddyeddy wrote: »

The second part is a fair point. I don't agree with the first part. As a whole the British security forces in the North didn't use conventional warfare.

Soldiers fathering entire families linked to suspected IRA members while "on deployment".

Cant be to sure if he's in the RA? Well he does have a sister so its time to take one for Queen and Country and get you're weapon out..

100 percent taxpayer funded. Got to give it to the Brits, they're pragmatic at the very least.

Galwayguy35

It's easy for people to criticize him and his involvement in the armed struggle as a young man but when Nationalists were being burned out of their homes and Brit soldiers were shooting civilians dead then fighting fire with fire would seem like the only option available.

He acknowledged his past and worked tirelessly for peace and reconciliation and this should be recognised.

RIP Martin.

steddyeddy

RustyNut wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that people who are living under an oppressive military occupation are entitled to resist that occupation by any and all means available.

So would most Americans. Hence their independence.

Jamiekelly

Seen the BBC's report, the mainland uk one not the NI one. A reporter asked the father of a bombing victim, i think it was Parry, whether he considered McGuinness a friend?

His answer was, surprise surprise, no.

Top class journalism there from the BBC. The same BBC that runs numerous segments almost daily on the BBC World News channel about "What can the media do... better?/ to make people trust us again?/ to not alienate viewers?

I swear the more and more I watch major news networks during big events the more I understand why Trump's "dumb media" line resonates.

RustyNut

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you are unable to see the difference between a force generally attempting to adhere to the conventions of warfare and a force which attempts to just generally cause mayhem, we're not going to have a fruitful discussion.

I would be of the opinion that people who are living under an oppressive military occupation are entitled to resist that occupation by any and all means available.

oppenheimer1

People will be searching for a long time to find a nation where it's history is not soaked in blood.

steddyeddy

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you are unable to see the difference between a force generally attempting to adhere to the conventions of warfare and a force which attempts to just generally cause mayhem, we're not going to have a fruitful discussion.

Only as long as different standards are being adhered to. In the latter half of the 20th Century, Western state bodies are generally held to various standards such as conventions on warfare. An organisation which sets out to cause indiscriminate havoc is not attempting to adhere to such a standard in the first place.

I am not condemning PIRA's decision to use violence, at least during the first part of the Troubles, when they were an insurgency. I don't see that there was much choice in the matter. I do condemn the manner in which they chose to use it.

The second part is a fair point. I don't agree with the first part. As a whole the British security forces in the North didn't use conventional warfare.

Noddyholder

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you are unable to see the difference between a force generally attempting to adhere to the conventions of warfare and a force which attempts to just generally cause mayhem, we're not going to have a fruitful discussion.

America, in its own back yard, we shall leave the rest of the world out of it, nearly exterminated the Natives, conquered half of Mexico, destroyed the Philippines, Cuba, Guatemala,Panama El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, and on and on, because apparently, they were bad.

Conventions of warfare there was it ? Get the **** out of it lad.

Jelle1880

steddyeddy wrote: »

By that standard Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. As were the British army.

I sincerely hope you are aware what the armed wing of the ANC is responsible for ?

Noddyholder

Manic Moran wrote: »

Without delving into the moral morass over when it is justifiable to move to arms in order to obtain at least the fair treatment demanded by NICRA in the '60s, and arguments over whether or not governments should negotiate with terrorists to obtain peace...

I keep seeing this quote, which is complete BS. It is entirely possible to be a freedom fighter without being a terrorist. George Washington was not a terrorist. Michael Collins was not a terrorist (Regardless of what their opposition called them). They did not deliberately and with aforethought target innocent people going about their daily lives on shopping streets. They did not plant bombs in the middle of town like on "Bloody Friday." They did not kill a family on their vacation in Sligo. Guerrillas, even urban guerrillas like Collins, are just as much freedom fighters, except they are selective in their choice of target. I accept that McGuinness may have steered the PIRA towards attacking government force targets, which is, in such a case, a good point in his favour. But claiming "I am fighting for freedom" does not give moral carte blanche to conduct oneself outside of reasonable bounds.

I keep seeing this revision of history of trying to say the old IRA were good & the new IRA were bad, that's BS.

For a start, he imported guns and money for guns from supporters in the United States. Yes, and robbed Irish banks and post offices as well.

Collins identified those who were the tools of the British rule in Ireland and directed his men against them. And he targeted in particular the members of the RIC -those 'fellow Irishmen', often those 'fellow Catholics', those fellow 'policemen doing their duty.' How did Collins deal with them? He had his men shoot them down without mercy, a bullet in the back of the head....when they were unarmed, or with their families, it mattered not to Collins.

How did Collins deal with the military on the streets of Dublin(remember now when the military where in the North)? By bomb and grenade.......and when there were civilian casualties, and there were - 46 civilians dead and 163 wounded in a five month period - they were the unfortunate causalities of war.

How did Collins deal with spies and informers and those seen to be too friendly with the RIC and Brits? Take them out and put a bullet through their heads. Old or young. No matter. Leave a label: Spies and informers beware!

How did Collins deal with agents of British rule in Ireland? He directed his squad against them en masse
, riddled them with bullets in their beds on Sunday morning, next to their wives, in front of their children, without hesitation.

And when the media condemned his methods as 'murder most foul', how did Collins react? He dispatched his men to the offices of the Irish Independent(the newspaper that called the volunteers of the Rising insane criminals) where they held the editor at gun-point, dismantled the entire printing machinery and destroyed it.

And believe me if Car bombs & semtex was around then you can bet your mother they would have used them,

All this they wouldn't do that & wouldn't do this...BS of the highest order.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

northknife wrote: »

Pity he wasnt elected President of Ireland.
A full state funeral would be the best way to send him off.

R.I.P. Martin McGuinness

here here, couldn't agree more. martin as our president or even leader both north and south would have been a dream come true. alas, it wasn't to be. it will also be a dream for gerry, to be our president or leader should he want the job.

PressRun

One of the most compelling political figures on this island and a remarkable life when viewed as a whole. I think history will be kind to him.

[Deleted User]

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you are unable to see the difference between a force generally attempting to adhere to the conventions of warfare and a force which attempts to just generally cause mayhem, we're not going to have a fruitful discussion.

Only as long as different standards are being adhered to. In the latter half of the 20th Century, Western state bodies are generally held to various standards such as conventions on warfare. An organisation which sets out to cause indiscriminate havoc is not attempting to adhere to such a standard in the first place.

I am not condemning PIRA's decision to use violence, at least during the first part of the Troubles, when they were an insurgency. I don't see that there was much choice in the matter. I do condemn the manner in which they chose to use it.

I'm not sure how you would consider the PIRA's campaign starting out as an insurgency and then not being one in the later stages of their campaign, or it being one whose primary goal was indiscriminate havoc either. Attacks like Narrow Water etc were carried out some 9 or 10 years or so after the PIRA first emerged. Heres also a chronological account of some of the 'Old' IRA's actions from 1919-21. Pretty brutal stuff even when compared with 1969 and after.

https://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/the-1985-sinn-fein-good-old-ira-pamphlet-and-historical-revisionism-a-response-to-comments/

steddyeddy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Without delving into the moral morass over when it is justifiable to move to arms in order to obtain at least the fair treatment demanded by NICRA in the '60s, and arguments over whether or not governments should negotiate with terrorists to obtain peace...

I keep seeing this quote, which is complete BS. It is entirely possible to be a freedom fighter without being a terrorist. George Washington was not a terrorist. Michael Collins was not a terrorist (Regardless of what their opposition called them). They did not deliberately and with aforethought target innocent people going about their daily lives on shopping streets. They did not plant bombs in the middle of town like on "Bloody Friday." They did not kill a family on their vacation in Sligo. Guerrillas, even urban guerrillas like Collins, are just as much freedom fighters, except they are selective in their choice of target. I accept that McGuinness may have steered the PIRA towards attacking government force targets, which is, in such a case, a good point in his favour. But claiming "I am fighting for freedom" does not give moral carte blanche to conduct oneself outside of reasonable bounds.

By that standard Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. As were the British army.

Manic Moran

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How about bombing cities from the air. Terrorists?

Intimidating communities with massive shows of force. Terrorists?

If you send an army in anywhere, it is for the purposes of spreading terror. the 'terror' of what those uniformed armed men will do, is meant to coerce.

Campaigns of terror, are a poor man's version of the above. Horrible, horrible things but engaged in by governments and groups alike.

If you are unable to see the difference between a force generally attempting to adhere to the conventions of warfare and a force which attempts to just generally cause mayhem, we're not going to have a fruitful discussion.

Deleted User wrote: »

RIP Martin McGuinness.

Putting the violence generated by organs of the state above that generated by other sources when connecting it to morality are you? Especially so when by far the biggest death tolls in history can be attributed to the actions of states.

Only as long as different standards are being adhered to. In the latter half of the 20th Century, Western state bodies are generally held to various standards such as conventions on warfare. An organisation which sets out to cause indiscriminate havoc is not attempting to adhere to such a standard in the first place.

I am not condemning PIRA's decision to use violence, at least during the first part of the Troubles, when they were an insurgency. I don't see that there was much choice in the matter. I do condemn the manner in which they chose to use it.

[Deleted User]

Manic Moran wrote: »

Without delving into the moral morass over when it is justifiable to move to arms in order to obtain at least the fair treatment demanded by NICRA in the '60s, and arguments over whether or not governments should negotiate with terrorists to obtain peace...

I keep seeing this quote, which is complete BS. It is entirely possible to be a freedom fighter without being a terrorist. George Washington was not a terrorist. Michael Collins was not a terrorist (Regardless of what their opposition called them). They did not deliberately and with aforethought target innocent people going about their daily lives on shopping streets. They did not plant bombs in the middle of town like on "Bloody Friday." They did not kill a family on their vacation in Sligo. Guerrillas, even urban guerrillas like Collins, are just as much freedom fighters, except they are selective in their choice of target. I accept that McGuinness may have steered the PIRA towards attacking government force targets, which is, in such a case, a good point in his favour. But claiming "I am fighting for freedom" does not give moral carte blanche to conduct oneself outside of reasonable bounds.

RIP Martin McGuinness.

Putting the violence generated by organs of the state above that generated by other sources when connecting it to morality are you? Especially so when by far the biggest death tolls in history can be attributed to the actions of states.