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

Scorpion Sting

Sad to learn of his untimely death. A driving force behind the peace process and his passion for his work was admirable. Rest in peace.

sonofenoch

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The first half of his life for you and your ilk deliberately ignores the first 'quarter'. A young boy growing up in a society that deemed him a second class citizen in a minority-Protestant controlled Catholic-majority city.

Witnessing the RUC beating his neighbours to death. Listening to stories of the B-Specials on the way to massacre the people of the Bogside for daring to resist RUC brutality.

His pals' Dads dragged out of their beds at night by the 'security forces'. Protestors being mass-murdered by a gang of killer Paras..

When are unionists and the British ever going to come out and say 'We're sorry, we made a balls of everything and caused the troubles'. I've never heard of any prominent unionist apologise for, you know, actually causing the troubles.

Now do what you usually do and scurry off out of the thread when confronted with the reality that dismantles that 'goodies versus baddies' fantasy you play out in your mind.

It's still hasn't been answered my earlier comment .......could someone from 'safe' Ireland explain to me or anyone why 1916 rebel leaders are glorified ....we had a big parade down O'Connell street last year for them (a military one no less) .......what is the big disparity between those fellows and McGuinness/Adams ....did innocent people not die in both conflicts

My name is URL

stockdam wrote: »

I had the same upbringing and "repression" but never for one minute thought of resorting to violence.

Well that's your own perogative

Some people will fight back when pushed beyond a certain point. Others are happy to bend over and take it.

Jelle1880

sonofenoch wrote: »

It's still hasn't been answered my earlier comment .......could someone from 'safe' Ireland explain to me or anyone why 1916 rebel leaders are glorified ....we had a big parade down O'Connell street last year for them (a military one no less) .......what is the big disparity between those fellows and McGuinness/Adams ....did innocent people not die in both conflicts

Did the leaders of the original IRA deliberately target civilians ? If not then there's your difference.

If they did then there is no difference. I'm not gonna pretend I know much about the Irish War of Independence apart from the basics but as far as I know this was mostly a conflict between soldiers.

dublincelt

A great man. Ireland will be a poorer place without him.

RIP

DEFTLEFTHAND

Sad couple of days for Derry.

I know that McGuinness was also a big Derry City FC fan.

FrancieBrady

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.

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.

tomwaterford

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)..

...surly you can see the irony of this??

Nidgeweasel

I am deeply saddened by this news. He fought for his people and did what needed to be done even when it wasn't the easy option.

Thank you Martin for everything you have done for our country. May you rest in peace.

He will be impossible to replace. I have concerns for Sinn Fein going forward.

northknife

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

Junkyard Tom

My name is URL wrote: »

Some people will fight back when pushed beyond a certain point.

For some not fighting back simply wasn't an option. Non-violence in the face of **** like this is just stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUKy29ZhP5Q

Fleawuss

Tebbit would be well advised to keep his mouth shut. His ilk created and endorsed the anti democratic and fascist statelet in the 6 counties and regarded themselves as superior beings. He would do well to think about his own culpability in his wife's injuries: oppression breeds retaliation and hatred and Tebbit and his moronic Tories endorsed and supported oppression.

I belong to a different strand of Irish republicanism than McGuinness and found most of the bloodletting they unleashed despicable and counter productive. Nonetheless I know the official govt. inspired poisonous brutality that swamped the 6 counties. McGuinness did what his society bade him but outgrew it and turned into an extraordinary forward looking politician. Ireland is the better not for his passing but for his life.

RIP

The Backwards Man

I'm not sorry that Martin McGuinness is dead. I won't shed any tears, but I won't be dancing on his grave either. I'm sorry that he didn't strive to drag his comrades and with them the knuckledragging loyalist scum and all who colluded with them down the peaceful path sooner. I'm glad he did in the end.

FrancieBrady

Fleawuss wrote: »

Tebbit would be well advised to keep his mouth shut.

Here's the lovely Norman spreading aspersions about the testimony of the accusers of his mate Jimmy Saville,

I've got no doubt Jimmy Savile was a very odd fellow, and I'm pretty sure he was in breach of the law on a number of matters. But I do not know that it's possible, 40 years on, to do justice in the sense of knowing just how many of those allegations are complete and true.

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

[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.

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.

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.

[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/

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.

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.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

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.

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: »

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.

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.

oppenheimer1

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

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.

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.

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.

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.