Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Options
24567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    TheMilkyPirate
    Registered Users Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭TheMilkyPirate


    Master and commander wrote: »
    maybe if they were not such a pain in the arse in the first place, the state would not have had to discriminate agaisnt them. They created their own trouble. If they just got on with it and avoided friction. It'd all have been hunky dory.

    Wow.


  • Options
    #33
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Morlar wrote: »
    People have moved on.

    What you refer to above would fall under the truth and reconcilliation comission which SF have been pushing for, no ?

    Unless you meant . . 'all the gory details related to one side of the conflict only'

    Morlar, read my post and stop inserting things that aren't there.

    If you want to say that, then say it out of your own mouth.


  • Options
    #34
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    johngalway wrote: »
    Morlar, read my post and stop inserting things that aren't there.

    If you want to say that, then say it out of your own mouth.

    Ok then I will ask you again.

    What you refer to above would fall under the 'truth and reconcilliation comission' which SF (alone) have been pushing for, no ?


  • Options
    #35
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,693 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    This is an interesting topic OP, any chance you could stick to your own request and let the relevant people answer your original question?


  • Options
    #36
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Morlar wrote: »
    Ok then I will ask you again.

    What you refer to above would fall under the 'truth and reconcilliation comission' which SF (alone) have been pushing for, no ?

    My post is 100% crystal clear Morlar.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    This is an interesting topic OP, any chance you could stick to your own request and let the relevant people answer your original question?

    I really don't understand your objection here.

    Someone made a point (in response to the OP) about being unable to move forward without all the 'gory details' coming out.

    I responded to that point that (to the best of my knowledge) if you want ALL the gory details to come out - that might fit with what SF have been looking for in the form of some sort of 'Truth and reconcilliation comission'. Not really seeing what I did wrong there.


  • Options
    #38
    BQQ
    Registered Users Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭BQQ


    Master and commander wrote: »
    i'm not saying norris is squeeky clean - he was wrong to do what he did, but it is nothing in comparrison to McGuinesses horrid and bloody past. Yet he is thrown out and McGuiness is embraced. Both should be out or both should be in. There is no consistency.

    He wasn't thrown out, he pulled out. Now he's put himself back in.
    Both are in (albeit one hasn't got nominated yet). There is consistency.
    Master and commander wrote: »
    The normans came in 1169, its not like they only arrived in 1905 FFS. They came to britain in 1066. Do the british go on about throwing them out like some here do over a 103 year difference in arrival times. No. Grow up ireland. Lets not forget that half of us are of norman decent anyway at this stage. Think about it. It all boils down to good old fashioned begrudgery IMO.

    You do see the hypocrisy there, don't you? Try taking your own advice.


  • Options
    #39
    HellsAngel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    Master and commander wrote: »
    So david norris is pushed out and ridiculed for writing a letter for clemency because his partner was covicted of statutory rape.
    Yet McGuiness was (debateably still is) a member of a terrorist group and admitted to being involved in many murders and terrorist acts, and they say he's a great fella and welcome him in?

    WTF to that i say!

    The man is a former terrorist and should be in jail. Period. It's an embarrasment to the state that he is being allowed to run. Its the equivalent to one of the 9/11 perpetrators being allowed run for president of the USA. disgraceful.

    The man is now going around shouting his mouth off saying he would be president of ALL ireland. erm, no you won't be. Irish president has jurisdiction over the republic of ireland, absoluteley nothing whatsoever to do with the state in the north, nor should it have. We are quite happy as things are, no need for a (former) kalashnikov wielding nutter like him to go stirring up sh!te.

    The prospect of him being in charge of the IDFs is scary really. Who knows what he and his SF henchmen will want to do, turn the Republic of Ireland into Europes North Korea or something. Plus, they [SF] are more or less COMMUNISTS after all. They want a socialist system.

    Frankly in this day and age anyone proposing that the socialist sytem is viable has no credibility whatsoever imo. Anyway, them man is a potentially dangerous maniac. Don't give him any opportunity to become one i say!

    Waht an embarrasment this whole fiasco is. so embarrased now.

    EDIT: now they think hes great cos he "brought peace", well lets not forget it was him and his organisation that started and sustained war and terrorism on the island - so if they were the ones that started it, they absolutely cannot and have no right to claim to be the bringers of peace. Their whole attitude reads like a bad joke. A party with dormant desires for genocide has no business and is not wanted down here.
    :rolleyes: Wannabe funny guy :rolleyes: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


  • Options
    #40
    Nhead
    Closed Accounts Posts: 309 ✭✭Nhead


    Remy Disgusting Hawk wrote: »
    Or how we all got on our moral high horses and asked the DUP etc to put the past behind them and move the peace process forward, but some can't find it in themselves to do likewise.

    Or how we celebrate Mandela and his long walk to freedom but overlook the man's (and the ANC's) past.

    In the same breath many members of the IRA can't forget what the British armed forces did and can't move past that either and going by boards the mere mention of DUP or the Orange Order drives certain posters into fits. These things are a two way street.

    Talking about Dev and Fianna Fail, we should remember that he had to do a huge about turn
    to enter the Dail and that there were worries about the party at the time. This was most
    memorably expressed by Cumman na Gaedheal's famous 'shadow of a gunman' poster. When
    Fianna Fail won the election one of the aides to Mulcahy said 'should we shoot them or salute
    them?' to their credit the PDF listened to the democratic will of the people. What I am trying
    to say is: Dev and his party entering into constitutional politics in the Free State at the time
    wasn't as smooth as is sometimes presented.



    The argument that the War of Independence and the conflict in NI are the same, is a much
    longer argument as no two conflicts are the same and the methods used in both are different and anyway are outside the remit of the
    OP's post.

    To be honest,Morlar coming from an Army upbringing I can understand those in the PDF having qualms over MMcG it would be natural given the stance that the IRA would have taken on the PDF ie. Not the legitimate army or at best Free State Bastards as they were affectionately called. People are only human, and just like there was mistrust between parties and people in the north there will be mistrust in the Republic also. I do think, however, that the Army will again respect the people it serves if we do indeed elect a Sinn Fein president.


  • Options
    #41
    COYW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,930 ✭✭✭COYW


    Morlar wrote: »
    I don't see that as an issue when he has already publicly stated that if elected he would be welcoming of british royalty. In fact if we are honest here I take the view that he would look forward to them visiting. The queen would be forced to shake his hand too don't forget.

    Ah, I get the picture now. So it's unacceptable for Queen Elizabeth II to visit this country when Mary McAleese is president and thus McGuinness' alliance behave like immature spoilt brats during the visit but if McGuinness is president, it's all good.

    Also, are you also telling us that Martin McGuinness is more interested in petty-republican point scoring (they have to shake his hand) as president than being a respectable representative for the country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    COYW wrote: »
    Ah, I get the picture now. So it's unacceptable for Queen Elizabeth II to visit this country when Mary McAleese is president and thus McGuinness' alliance behave like immature spoilt brats during the visit but if McGuinness is president, it's all good.

    Also, are you also telling us that Martin McGuinness is more interested in petty-republican point scoring (they have to shake his hand) as president than being a respectable representative for the country.

    You are quoting a post where I say one thing, and then saying 'aha I see you are saying (insert something completely different).'

    This is what I said on the non issue of meeting the british queen.

    This bit here clarifies that it is a non issue in my view :
    Morlar wrote: »
    I don't see that as an issue when he has already publicly stated that if elected he would be welcoming of british royalty.


    This bit here :
    Morlar wrote: »
    In fact if we are honest here I take the view that he would look forward to them visiting. The queen would be forced to shake his hand too don't forget.

    Is pointing out a simple truth, which is that much as he may not personally like being required to shake her hand, you can be assured that she will not like to do so either.

    If you want to rely on taking that offhand (pun intended) comment out of context and blow it out of all proportion then fire away. That is not the approach I have taken to this discussion.


  • Options
    #43
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Morlar wrote: »
    You are quoting a post where I say one thing, and then saying 'aha I see you are saying (insert something completely different).'

    Sounds familiar.


  • Options
    #44
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    johngalway wrote: »
    Sounds familiar.

    Not at all, I asked you to clarify that your proposal was not a one-way street. In fact I have asked you several times now, the question of :

    IF what you said is required (( 'the gory details out in the open' )) would be served best by a proposal to create some form of 'Peace and Reconcilliation Comission' ?

    A proposal that to the best of my knowledge SF are the only political party to support. A question which you have failed to address.


  • Options
    #45
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    johngalway wrote: »
    on all sides.

    Bold for emphasis.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Unless you meant . . 'all the gory details related to one side of the conflict only'
    Morlar wrote: »
    Not at all

    Yes I'm afraid :) Why you felt the desire to ask me a question, and more strangely keep asking it :confused: I'd clearly answered in my first post is something I don't understand.


  • Options
    #46
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    johngalway wrote: »
    I don't believe anyone has or can move on until all the gory details have come out about things which have happened during "The Troubles", on all sides.

    Anything else is glorified pretending IMV.


    Let me explain this as I see it.

    What you have said is :

    SF can not stand for president until there is an open admission on all sides of the 'Gory details'.

    Agreed ?

    The closest thing to an 'open admission from all sides' of the 'Gory Details' is some form of 'truth and reconcilliation comission'.

    Agreed ?

    SF are the only party on these islands to support some form of 'Truth and Reconcilliation comission'.

    Therefore according to you, SF should not stand for president because there is a pre-requisite, however SF are the only party on these islands to support that pre-requisite.

    So that's why, in my view, your position on this makes no sense.


  • Options
    #47
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    For reference this is a 2008 press release :

    http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/13738

    I have not been able to find any other parties north or south east or west who also support either this or something equivalent to this. Open to correction on that.

    Sinn Féin Backs Independent International Truth Commission

    September 28, 2008

    In an article in this week's An Phoblacht Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams MP MLA has revealed that following a process of consultation and discussion, particularly with victims and victims groups, Sinn Féin has concluded that the best way forward on this issue is through the establishment of an Independent International Truth Commission.

    The Sinn Féin President said:

    "In the last few years these families have come together to organise and campaign for the truth. Campaigning groups like Relatives for Justice, Justice for the Forgotten and the Pat Finucane centre, are making similar demands. Also across this island and in Britain there are other families involved in campaigns. Some of these are victims of republican actions who are also seeking truth.

    The issue of state killings and of collusion - which was an administrative practice and part of the British government's strategy - must also be dealt with.

    There is understandable concern about the British governments commitment to a truth recovery process. Their actions in refusing to co-operate with the Barron Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings; their refusal to hand over files in relation to the killing of Pat Finucane and others; and their wilful stalling and obstruction of the Saville Inquiry, are all evidence of an unwillingness on the part of the British government, and its military and intelligence establishment, to end the cover ups and to take responsibility for their actions during the conflict.

    Brushing it under the carpet, revising our history to exorcise the role of the British state in fomenting and prolonging conflict in our country, is in no ones interest - especially the families.

    Republicans have clearly acknowledged many times the hurt they inflicted during the conflict. I have expressed my personal and sincere regret and apologised for that hurt. The IRA has also acknowledged what it has done. That is the right and proper thing to do. The IRA has apologised to all those non-combatants it killed or injured and their families.

    For our part Sinn Féin is very mindful of all of the difficulties involved in truth recovery, particularly for victims and their families. But we believe that as society seeks to leave conflict behind and to move forward there is a requirement that all of us address the tragic human consequences of the past.

    Sinn Féin supports all of the families in their efforts to achieve truth. In 2003 Sinn Féin published a discussion document on "Truth". Its purpose was to set out our view of the timing and purpose of a truth recovery process and the nature and form of such
    a process.

    In this spirit Sinn Fein has put forward principles which we believe should underpin any effective truth recovery process. The principles we identified are:

    All processes should be victim-centred and deal with victims on an all-Ireland basis;
    Full co-operation by all relevant parties is essential to the success of any commission;
    There should be no hierarchy of victims;
    All processes should be politically neutral;
    Any future panel should be international and independent;
    One of the purposes of any future panel/commission should be to examine the 'causes, nature and extent' of the conflict;
    An objective of any process should be healing - both for direct victims and for society in general;
    A common aim should be to enable society to build the peace;
    Reconciliation should be the core aim of any truth process; and Respect and generosity should inform the parties seeking to reach agreement.

    Those of us charged with political responsibility must agree and deliver a process that is meaningful and substantive. There is an onus on all political leaders to promote this. This includes the Irish government which has a constitutional, legal and moral responsibility to actively promote this course of action.


    That means thinking beyond any sectarian, sectional, party political or self interest. So, a truth process to deal with the war in Ireland must be victim centred and inform future generations of the lessons from our conflict.

    It must be a process that can deliver the truth to bereaved families as a result of independent investigation.

    And it must analyse the policies and practices that sustained and fuelled the conflict.

    Being victim centred means that it must embrace all the victims, all the protagonists, whether they live in Ireland or England or elsewhere.

    A truth process must reach out to these people.

    One way of achieving an independent process is to have an international inquiry. The United Nations or another reputable agency could be involved. In Ireland many of the victims groups have been looking at the possibility of establishing an Independent
    International Truth Commission.

    Sinn Fein has now met many of these groups and we have concluded that the establishment of an Independent International Truth Commission is the best way of taking this issue forward.

    Key to the success of such a Commission is the full co-operation by all relevant parties. And clearly the willingness of individuals to voluntarily participate will be greatly enhanced if the Commission is seen to be independent, have an international dimension and be fair and equitable.

    Of course, it won't be easy. There are vested groups who will not want the truth; and who will oppose the creation of a meaningful truth recovery process. So this is going to be an immensely difficult and painful process and experience. It must therefore be
    conducted in a sensitive and generous way.

    Building a united harmonious society demands that these difficult issues are dealt with in an inclusive way as a necessary part of putting the past behind us. Looking after victims and victims' families and survivors is a significant and important part of this." ENDS


  • Options
    #48
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    johngalway wrote: »
    I don't believe anyone has or can move on until all the gory details have come out about things which have happened during "The Troubles", on all sides.

    Anything else is glorified pretending IMV.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Let me explain this as I see it.

    What you have said is :

    SF can not stand for president until there is an open admission on all sides of the 'Gory details'.

    Agreed ?

    The closest thing to an 'open admission from all sides' of the 'Gory Details' is some form of 'truth and reconcilliation comission'.

    Agreed ?

    SF are the only party on these islands to support some form of 'Truth and Reconcilliation comission'.

    Therefore according to you, SF should not stand for president because there is a pre-requisite, however SF are the only party on these islands to support that pre-requisite.

    So that's why, in my view, your position on this makes no sense.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Agreed ?

    No :)

    Anyone can stand for nomination, anyone can stand for election if they get the required support.

    What I said is that "moving on" requires honest information given to the public by, let me emphasise this bit again, ALL sides. Only then can it be said that people have moved on. Until that time, there are lots of outstanding issues unresolved on ALL sides.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Agreed ?

    Calling for, and doing, are two very different things. Be the better/bigger side and get on with it. Talk is cheap.
    Morlar wrote: »
    Therefore according to you, SF should not stand for president because there is a pre-requisite, however SF are the only party on these islands to support that pre-requisite.

    No :)

    According to me Martin is pretending to be a "uniter", trying to tell the meeja the questions he can and can't be asked. Saying how he should be judged on the past two decades of his life, hmmm, why is that Martin? Very democratic that.

    He's doing more pretend "uniting" by his "westbrit" comments today, just shows his tribalism alive and well inside, also while the term doesn't describe me, I find it derogatory and unfit to be used by someone running for the office of President.

    That just shows how until the full truths of what went on during that dirty war come out people can't be painted with a wide all encompassing brush stroke of having "moved on", which is a cosy, handy and timely fit for some, politically.

    None of the above stops him running for the office, nor should it. But, I never objected to him doing so, as you seemed to think I did :confused:

    But it would help unite people if he'd stop pretending and started doing as his party is advising, a bit of truth, and a bit of reconciliation.


  • Options
    #49
    GarryJ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭GarryJ


    Master and commander wrote: »
    ... well lets not forget it was him and his organisation that started and sustained war and terrorism on the island - so if they were the ones that started it, they absolutely cannot and have no right to claim to be the bringers of peace...

    Really? Are you joking?

    Show me the history book that details the time the Irish marched over to britian, forced the peace loving locals to invade Ireland at gun point, etc...

    I won't be voting for martin McGuinness, but statements like that almost puts me in the mind to do so.


  • Options
    #50
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    johngalway wrote: »
    What I said is that "moving on" requires honest information given to the public by, let me emphasise this bit again, ALL sides. Only then can it be said that people have moved on. Until that time, there are lots of outstanding issues unresolved on ALL sides.

    The closest thing to what you are describing is this.
    johngalway wrote: »
    Calling for, and doing, are two very different things. Be the better/bigger side and get on with it. Talk is cheap.

    You seem to suggest that one side (ie Republicans) should come forward with all the gory details without any similar response from ANY other side in the conflict ?

    Can you clarify that this is now your position ?

    That would categorically NOT fit the 'all sides' requirement then would it ?

    Otherwise, without ALL Sides agreement it is simply not possible for SF to establish a UN comission for Truth along these kind of reasonable considered lines :

    http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/13738

    My view is that agreement from ALL other parties to the conflict is a requirement. So far support for this is limited to a single political party. To be honest with you I do not know what FG/Labour would have to lose in this, I could understand what the British Govt may stand to lose, also reluctance among UVF/UDV/UFF etc is understandable, however with Unionist party support I don't see that as an unsurmountable challenge.


  • Options
    #51
    Geekness1234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,358 ✭✭✭Geekness1234


    Morphéus wrote: »
    i hope he doesn't get in.

    he is a terrorist.

    he still hasn't admitted his role in the murders that took place during the terrorist attacks both up north and down here and I have no respect for him or his party. but that's just me. I'm sure there are plenty of people here with different views.

    Will he be able to admit there is only one Oglaigh Na h'Eireann when he comes down looking for votes.

    He is still a member of a secret society.

    There is much to make me not want his ilk in office.
    Damn Right!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Morlar wrote: »
    The closest thing to what you are describing is this.



    You seem to suggest that one side (ie Republicans) should come forward with all the gory details without any similar response from ANY other side in the conflict ?

    Can you clarify that this is now your position ?

    That would categorically NOT fit the 'all sides' requirement then would it ?

    Otherwise, without ALL Sides agreement it is simply not possible for SF to establish a UN comission for Truth along these kind of reasonable considered lines :

    http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/13738

    My view is that agreement from ALL other parties to the conflict is a requirement. So far support for this is limited to a single political party. To be honest with you I do not know what FG/Labour would have to lose in this, I could understand what the British Govt may stand to lose, also reluctance among UVF/UDV/UFF etc is understandable, however with Unionist party support I don't see that as an unsurmountable challenge.

    I can 100% clarify that when the...
    Morlar wrote: »
    British Govt ... UVF/UDV/UFF

    get off their collective backsides and nominate their own candidates for the office of President of Ireland I will indeed be just as demanding on them.

    Until then... I see no other candidate in the current field who has questions to answer about his murky past, which could, allegedly, involve the death and murder or people on or outside of this island, or assistance to others who had that aim.

    I don't remember either the FG or Lab candidate having involvement in a not so secret army, with one ambition of overthrowing this state. So I'll agree with you on that point, neither FG nor Lab have anything to lose there.

    Martin is presenting himself as a uniter. A hardworking peacemaker who has moved on from his past.

    ....Once you agree not to ask him about it :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #53
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    You seem to be shifting your position from 'All sides need to come clean' to 'only martin is standing for election', ergo 'Only Republicans need to come clean'. I don't agree with that approach at all.

    To me the past of that conflict is so intense and complex and deep rooted that a comprehensive comission along the lines of what is outlined here :

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74505395&postcount=47

    would be beneficial and cathartic to basically everyone on both of these islands.

    It would mark the beginning of real and meaningful healing and forgiveness and understanding. Once that is achieved then the prospect of returning to those days can be laid to rest. As things stand now, presonally I do not think we are at that place yet, and in my view things could still slip backwards.

    Part of all of the above process is acknowledging that there were and are victims on all sides, some guilty, most innocent, some killed or maimed by one group and others killed and mained by another group (I would of course include victims, innocent and otherwise, of army wrongdoings and quasi-official collusion).

    If you approach such a subject as the troubles with a view that

    'One side must come clean in isolation to other sides of the conflict'

    then you are re-victimising one community and one set of victims. You are shortchanging them in preference to another set of victims for short term, disingenous political expediency. I had not read that release :

    http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/13738

    until I googled it earler, having read it and re-read now I have to say I am in full agreement with pretty much all of it.


  • Options
    #54
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Morlar wrote: »
    You seem to be shifting your position from 'All sides need to come clean' to 'only martin is standing for election', ergo 'Only Republicans need to come clean'.

    then you are re-victimising one community and one set of victims. You are shortchanging them in preference to another set of victims for short term, disingenous political expediency.

    I've shifted from no position in this.

    All sides need to come clean.

    Martin is the one standing for the office of President.

    Where's the confusion?

    I think if anyone is doing re-victimisation it's Martin by the guff he's spouting about being a unifier.


  • Options
    #55
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    johngalway wrote: »
    I've shifted from no position in this.

    All sides need to come clean.

    Martin is the one standing for the office of President.

    Where's the confusion?

    I think if anyone is doing re-victimisation it's Martin by the guff he's spouting about being a unifier.

    Earlier today you were saying 'All sides need to come clean' now it's,
    'only martin is standing for election, republicans should go first' - that is in my view a politically expedient shift of position.


  • Options
    #56
    Master and commander
    Closed Accounts Posts: 448 ✭✭Master and commander


    GarryJ wrote: »
    Really? Are you joking?

    Show me the history book that details the time the Irish marched over to britian, forced the peace loving locals to invade Ireland at gun point, etc...

    I won't be voting for martin McGuinness, but statements like that almost puts me in the mind to do so.


    well before the whole war of independance thing, Ireland was more or less peaceful. Then along came the IRB and the Shinners and the sh!t hit the fan. So yeah, they pretty much caused it. If they were not there, it would not have happened.
    There is only one reason why they resorted to violence - because they did not have enough support from the people to achieve their aims by democratic means, then they tried to implement their policies by force.


  • Options
    #57
    johngalway
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Morlar wrote: »
    Earlier today you were saying 'All sides need to come clean' now it's,
    'only martin is standing for election, republicans should go first' - that is in my view a politically expedient shift of position.

    No, it's statement of fact :confused:


  • Options
    #58
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    I wonder what the views of the familes of Private Patrick Kelly, Recruit Garda Gary Sheehan, and Detective Garda Gerry McCabe are on this?


  • Options
    #59
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    PeterIanStaker wrote: »
    I wonder what the views of the familes of Private Patrick Kelly, Recruit Garda Gary Sheehan, and Detective Garda Gerry McCabe are on this?

    They may dissaprove, they may have strong feelings on the subject. I am sure the media will be asking them soon enough.

    On the other hand they may take the view of a family member of a Claudy bombing victim who expressed support for his leadership role in the peace process & running for President.

    We will see if the media show both viewpoints a proportional level of interest.

    Would you be equally bothered if the families of victims of loyalist sectarian violence, or of british army violence/collusion expressed concern over an orange parade through the city, or at loyalist paramilitaries being feted by politicians in the south ? Or at a visit by the queen ?

    Visits and parades are a different thing to presidential elections, but the question is a valid one, basically I am wondering if your victim concern is for victims of republican violence or for all victims of violence ?


  • Options
    #60
    PeterIanStaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭PeterIanStaker


    Morlar wrote: »
    Would you be equally bothered if the families of victims of loyalist sectarian violence, or of british army violence/collusion expressed concern over an orange parade through the city, or at loyalist paramilitaries being feted by politicians in the south ? Or at a visit by the queen ?

    I am wondering if your victim concern is for victims of republican violence or for all victims of violence ?

    Yes, I'm concerned for all victims of violence. I'm no revisionist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    PeterIanStaker wrote: »
    Yes, I'm concerned for all victims of violence.

    On the issue of victims of violence, what are your thoughts on the level of media attention of and all-party support for this initiative ?


Advertisement