steddyeddy wrote: » It's not the airbrushing of the IRA past, it's the airbrushing of the events that led to the IRA. I suppose the victim mentality gains better traction in the unionist communities.
timthumbni wrote: » It appears that a lot of republicans on here want to air brush martins very, very dodgy past out of the picture. Unfortunately life doesn't work like that and your past actions are often examined especially someone in the public eye like mcguiness. It's also quite interesting that some on here are getting worked up over the nerve of a uk newspaper site (a very widely read one at that) bringing up his IRA career. Of course it's very relevant and it's also right that some of the many, many victims of Irish republican violence get to air their views. If republicans want a non critical story full of sweetness and pixie dust they can always buy the Irish news or an problact (spelling?)
Noddyholder wrote: » People reading about Martin MC Guinness story shouldent start with why he joined the IRA , but should start with the horrible wretched violent bigoted state forced upon him and a whole population.
steddyeddy wrote: » No you got it wrong. Carson, unionist started a terror group because he felt under siege. That's OK according to unionists. Catholics tortured, interned and discrimnated agains't and it's wrong.
Rjd2 wrote: » I thought Channel 4 news tonight was pretty well balanced. It had numerous different viewpoints featured such as a Sinn Fein member, Allistar Campbell, Eamon Mc Cann and some relatives of those killed by the IRA featured. It was very interesting. I wouldn't bother with the trashier tabloid right wing newspapers whatsoever when it comes to his death and I say that as someone who was no great fan of the man.
Jelle1880 wrote: » Exactly why is that funny ? They're talking about murdered people whose families to this day don't know where their loved ones are buried.
Mental Mickey wrote: » Did I just hear Arlene Foster having a little "dig" in her "tribute" just now on the News?
Jelle1880 wrote: » Her comment about the victims might have been left out but it's also something that shouldn't be ignored.
please helpThank YOU wrote: » is Arlene father our mother catholic?
Manic Moran wrote: » Narrow Water was a legitimate attack, and if only it were far more representative of the PIRA's campaign as a whole, we could be looking at a much less controversial guerrilla campaign. They may not have been as successful, but attacks against the security forces had been much more common in the earlier years, and the nature of the opposition had changed over time. The following is from the British Army's assessment: On the matter of mass and organisation:
Deleted User wrote: » "...as relatives of the IRA's victims mourn the loved ones they will NEVER bury" NEVER! Hehe. There are some fierce thick tools over in that Daily Mail newsroom. Roll on Brexit/end of Empire/Scottish independence/reunification of Ireland. To paraphrase loyalists in 1974: 'Irish reunification/Scottish independence is only a Brexit away'. Go for it, Britannia - push that button on 29 March 2017.
Deleted User wrote: » 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.
For the purposes of this publication the differences between insurgency and terrorism can be considered as those of mass, means and methods. "Insurgency’ generally includes large numbers of insurgents using moderately conventional weapons, organisations and tactics. By comparison ‘terrorism’ is more selective and often more sophisticated in its means and methods of attack, whilst employing generally smaller numbers. These features broadly apply to Northern Ireland. A different approach would be to define terrorism as a tactic and therefore a terrorist organisation as one which acts largely covertly and deploys terrorism as its main means of violence. Conversely, insurgency presupposes an insurgent body (as OIRA and PIRA could both be described in the early 1970s) which employs fairly direct action to achieve its aims although operating under the cover of the local population. These definitions also generally apply to Northern Ireland. [Snip] The next phase, from the summer of 1971 until the mid-1970s, is best described as a classic insurgency. Both the Official and Provisional wings of the Irish Republican Army (OIRA and PIRA) fought the security forces in more-or-less formed bodies. Both had a structure of companies, battalions and brigades, with a recognisable structure and headquarters staff. Protracted firefights were common. The Army responded with operations at up to brigade and even divisional level. The largest of these was Operation MOTORMAN, which was conducted from 31 July to 1 December 1972. It marked the beginning of the end of the insurgency phase. The OIRA declared a ceasefire in 1972 which it has never broken. The PIRA began a process of transforming itself into a terrorist organisation based on a cell structure. The end of the insurgency merged into the phase characterised by the use of terrorist tactics. PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom (UK) and on the continent of Europe. From 1980 onwards its political wing, Sinn Fein, involved itself in mainstream politics in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the UK.
Both the OIRA and PIRA grew rapidly; by July 1971 there were estimated to be about 200 members of OIRA and 500 in PIRA. Of those 700 about 130 were in Londonderry and 340 in Belfast. By the end of the year there were over 2,000 – about 1300 PIRA and 750 OIRA - of whom about 880 were active. Those numbers exclude about 400 who had already been interned. By May 1972 there were about 1700 active members of the two organisations, and a further 600 had been interned. Training levels were poor and weapons were scarce. Operation MOTORMAN was effectively the beginning of the end of the insurgent stage of the campaign. Altogether about 10,000 people were involved in the IRA between 1969 and 1972. Many could still be used for support in a number of areas. The numbers remained high through 1973: about 1600 active members plus 200 auxiliaries, 200 women and 600 youths. However, PIRA was adapting and evolving. For most of Operation BANNER PIRA was the principal cause of violence. By 1978, when it had evolved fully into a cellular terrorist structure of 200-300 active members, there was no shortage of experienced men (and some women) to draw on
FrancieBrady wrote: » Arlene won't be poking or trolling republicans again I'd imagine. It will be interesting to see if she will go to the funeral though. I see Enda and the President are.
Jelle1880 wrote: » I genuinely think you're blinded by your own dislike/hatred for her.http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/martin-mcguinness-death-tributes-from-clinton-may-blair-hume-oneill-foster-adams-and-nesbitt-as-sinn-fein-chief-loses-fight-for-life-at-derrys-altnagelvin-hospital-35550730.html Her comment about the victims might have been left out but it's also something that shouldn't be ignored.
steddyeddy wrote: » Look at her recent interview on the view. Completely the opposite sentiment. No give, no flexibility and no viewpoint other than hate. The unionists always had the idea that violence sprang from nowhere. This is the same community who organised the UVF when Ireland was about to get independence. Pot meet kettle.
Arlene Foster: 'Pivotal' Ms Foster said: “He served the people of Northern Ireland as deputy first minister for nearly a decade and was pivotal in bringing the republican movement towards a position of using peaceful and democratic means.” “In recent years his contribution helped build the relative peace we now enjoy,” Ms Foster said. “While our differing backgrounds and life experiences inevitably meant there was much to separate us, we shared a deep desire to see the devolved institutions working to achieve positive results for everyone. I know that he believed that the institutions were the basis for building stability. She described Mr McGuinness as a “much loved husband, father and grandfather”. “Today's news will come as a shock to many people. “My thoughts and prayers are with his wife and the family circle at this very painful time of grief and loss,” she added. “Martin faced his illness with courage and, after stepping away from the glare of the public spotlight I sinerely hope he got the chance to enjoy the things he loved."
murpho999 wrote: » Been looking at British print media's coverage and its main focus has been on McGuinness's role as IRA Commander rather than his role as Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Comments section of Daily Mail is truly shocking, saying he is no loss and how disappointed they are in the Queen for sending a sympathy message.Daily Mail Article Same paper also has a shocking article about James McCleans tweet about Martin McGuinness. What they fail to realise that it would be normal for a head of state to send a condolence message on the passing of a government minister which is exactly what Martin McGuinness was as Northern Ireland is a constituent part of the UK. They are ignoring his achievement in bringing the IRA to a ceasefire and ultimately the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent peace. Do they not realise in a war situation which NI was in for over 20 years that the options were to surrender, win militarily or negotiate a truce, which involved dealing with the enemies leaders which is exactly what happened in Northern Ireland. What alternative did they want? The truth is that the vast majority of British people have no idea what actually happened in NI during the troubles and think that the British only had a benign role. They see themselves as sole victims of IRA attacks whilst not knowing what happened in Northern Ireland. I would also argue that the vast majority have no idea what's occuring in Northern Ireland politics today and I do wonder if this general apathy and ignorance will eventually lead to disillusionment among Unionists and Northern Ireland leaving the UK.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f0fd26a34d4ac2a9eff521bc9eaed40a.svg)
