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

1235711

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    gatecrash wrote: »
    Gutter tactics? You were implying that just because Shatter is Jewish that he'd have a greater affiliation to the State of Israel!! You all but named the man ffs

    Let's not distort the chronology of this thread.

    The gutter tactics, and tactics of fearmongering on this thread are to allege that Martin McGuinness was a security risk on the basis that being president he would use the Presidency to try to access to confidential files.

    The implication being that in this position he would access the files and presumably pass them on to paramilitaries.

    This post came BEFORE my response :
    concussion wrote: »
    And I wouldn't like MMcG ceremonially commissioning officers in the Defence Forces or ceremonially accessing intelligence files relating to him and his former associates.

    What I said in response to that piece of fearmongering was :

    Morlar wrote: »
    The office of the president entails access to confidential security files ?

    This is getting ridiculous.

    To continue this ridiculous theme I think a far more probable security concern would be if a defence minister held dual citizen ship with another nation. Or a defence minister who had any kind of religious allegiance to a foreign power which has in the past been responsible for the deaths of Irish peacekeepers. A country which also used Irish govt issued passports to carry out assassinations. That would be (if it were true) a far more probable security concern than the president or Ireland raiding Irish intelligence / security services archives. imo.

    The reason why the next ridiculous example I chose (in order to highlight the ludicrousness of this level of fearmongering) was Shatter, on the basis that he actually has security level access to confidential files which his office requires, and also that he (Shatter) had chosen to interfere with the democratic process in this particular case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    gatecrash wrote: »
    Sinn Fein are the only party to ensure decommissioning, because Sinn Fein are the only party who still had an armed wing running around the place blowing people up!!

    So do you think the history of Ireland only goes back 30 years?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    So do you think the history of Ireland only goes back 30 years?

    You made a hoohah about Sinn Fein being the only party to ensure that there was decommissioning. I think it's kind of valid to point out the fact that Sinn Fein were the only republican party that had an armed wing. So to make a big deal of them decommissioning is kind of like me making a big deal of driving my car today.

    I only have one car, so making a big deal about driving it is ridiculous. The same as one republican political party having a bunch of guns and making a big deal about how they are the only republican political party to decommission those guns is ridiculous.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    gatecrash wrote: »
    Sinn Fein are the only party to ensure decommissioning, because Sinn Fein are the only party who still had an armed wing running around the place blowing people up!!

    John Bruton had it right the other day when he asked WHY is Martin McGuinness leaving a job in the 6 counties that is still not complete? If he wants to be president, then finish off the job up north. There are still very real issues up there to get sorted, there are still lunatics running around up there handing out punishment beatings, blowing up PSNI officers, there are still very real problems to get fixed.

    Finish the job before looking for another one Martin.
    John 'Unionist' you mean :D That's the guy who along with that other great Irish nationalist Eoghan Harris tried to imply that Mary McAleese wasn't a legitimate candidate with the infamous "tribal timebomb" comments 14 years ago !!!!!!!

    MMcG and the SFers must be glowing with glee not that John Unionist has opened his big gob !!!!! Another few thousand votes for Marty :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    John 'Unionist' you mean :D That's the guy who along with that other great Irish nationalist Eoghan Harris tried to imply that Mary McAleese wasn't a legitimate candidate with the infamous "tribal timebomb" comments 14 years ago !!!!!!!

    MMcG and the SFers must be glowing with glee not that John Unionist has opened his big gob !!!!! Another few thousand votes for Marty :)

    I DO wish you'd make up your mind.

    I can't let the fact that McGuinness is a convicted ex terrrorist and member of an illegal organisation because it happened before he decided to become a politician hold me back from voting for him, and yet you you can bring up comments that were made 14 years ago, AND by someone who isn't even standing? Riiiiight.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,975 ✭✭✭nkay1985


    nkay1985 wrote: »
    To that argument, I'll put forward the view of someone who lived "up there" during that awful time, which I feel explains the feelings of a lot of northern catholics from back then.

    Link.

    This whole article is very good but, in this context, I draw attention to the following section.

    Following on from this post earlier, Martina Devlin, the woman who wrote the article I've linked above, was just on with Seán Moncrieff and, in an almost throwaway question, he asked was she bored with the presidential election and her answer turned it into a pretty decent debate.

    If you get a chance, check it out on Newstalk's website once they archive it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    gatecrash wrote: »
    I DO wish you'd make up your mind.

    I can't let the fact that McGuinness is a convicted ex terrrorist and member of an illegal organisation because it happened before he decided to become a politician hold me back from voting for him, and yet you you can bring up comments that were made 14 years ago, AND by someone who isn't even standing? Riiiiight.
    I must say we've had some of the usual responces for an ' Irish ' military forum :DThe great 'crime' of MMcG and other young men who watched the RUC and Paisleyite mobs trying to burn down their houses and murder their neighbours is that they struck back. They struck back at the brave little Tommies who came with the excuse of keeping the ' peace in OIreland ' just like tens of thousands of Brits have come before - only to end up trying to terroise the natives into submission, with the help of the UVF, UFF, UDA, RUC and UDR ofcourse.

    And now and again the Brit dirty tricks dept could arrange for their 'heros' in the SAS/UVF for a bomb to go off south of the border just to let southerners know who was master - with the Irish state standly "idly by" each time despite the private concerns about who was respondcible expressed by the Irish Army and some Guards.

    When the state stood "idly by " and let their masters in London run rough shod over human rights and any notion of a just society in the six counties, the cringing southern political controllers could only blame the victims who fought back. This I believe is at the heart of the reaction to Martin McG's presidential run.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    I must say we've had some of the usual responces for an ' Irish ' military forum :D The great 'crime' of MMcG and other young men who watched the RUC and Paisleyite mobs trying to burn down their houses and murder their neighbours is that they struck back. They struck back at the brave little Tommies who came with the excuse of keeping the ' peace in OIreland ' just like tens of thousands of Brits have come before - only to end up trying to terroise the natives into submission, with the help of the UVF, UFF, UDA, RUC and UDR ofcourse.

    And now and again the Brit dirty tricks dept could arrange for their 'heros' in the SAS/UVF for a bomb to go off south of the border just to let southerners know who was master - with the Irish state standly "idly by" each time despite the private concerns about who was respondcible expressed by the Irish Army and some Guards.


    When the state stood "idly by " and let their masters in London run rough shod over human rights and any notion of a just society in the six counties, the cringing southern political controllers could only blame the victims who fought back. This I believe is at the heart of the reaction to Martin McG's presidential run.

    No, the reaction to McGuinness' run is because for most of his life he didnpt recognise the state that he now wants to be the political figurehead.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39 Red Right Hand


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    I must say we've had some of the usual responces for an ' Irish ' military forum :DThe great 'crime' of MMcG and other young men who watched the RUC and Paisleyite mobs trying to burn down their houses and murder their neighbours is that they struck back.

    If his involvement in paramilitary activity did not go beyond the few weeks in 1969 that you mention must people's few of him would be less critical. What you conveniently ignore is that he was a senior figure in starting another conflict, one which was to drive the British out of the north. It was a conflict that could only have ended as it did, with the stated aims not being achieved and with thousands dead and injured.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    If his involvement in paramilitary activity did not go beyond the few weeks in 1969 that you mention must people's few of him would be less critical. What you conveniently ignore is that he was a senior figure in starting another conflict, one which was to drive the British out of the north. It was a conflict that could only have ended as it did, with the stated aims not being achieved and with thousands dead and injured.

    You are compartmentalising a wide ranging complex conflict into neat little bitesized chunks.

    Then trying to characterise them as one thing or another. So that suddenly during the 2011 Presidential election 1969 becomes acceptable but not 1972.

    It seems to be an intellectually dishonest approach to me. At that time and in that context people who lived in the maelstrom of conflict did not have the benefit of armchair hindsight, or the benefit of a clinical seperation from what was going on in their daily lives.

    You are also overlooking the fact that the avenue of resistance offered by the Civil Rights movement was effectively shut down by being met repeatedly with state force & repression.

    First the 95% protestant b-specials baton charging peaceful (predominantly catholic) protestors, then a few years later progressing to the parachute regiment firing into crowds of Irish people. People lying on the ground shot in the back, shot through their underarm as their arms were raised and so on. Then having bombs and guns planted on the bodies and an official Widgery coverup that was used to further victimise the families for another 30 yrs+.

    The viewpoint from in the thick of it, during those events & in the aftermath was bound to be less clinical.

    The situation evolved it didn't click from one discernible thing to suddenly another completely different discernible thing. For those caught up in it seeing friends, neighbours, family and loved ones going through that on a daily basis the vantage point you enjoy was probably beyond them. It's spurious to attempt to impose your modern overlay onto those events as a means to condemn one politician who came through ALL of that and still chose the path of politics and peace.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    gatecrash wrote: »
    You made a hoohah about Sinn Fein being the only party to ensure that there was decommissioning. I think it's kind of valid to point out the fact that Sinn Fein were the only republican party that had an armed wing. So to make a big deal of them decommissioning is kind of like me making a big deal of driving my car today.

    I only have one car, so making a big deal about driving it is ridiculous. The same as one republican political party having a bunch of guns and making a big deal about how they are the only republican political party to decommission those guns is ridiculous.

    Even after that answer I'd still like to know, given that every Irish political party (bar the ULA) has stemmed from violence... do you think the history of Ireland only goes back 30 years?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭bobbysands81


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    I must say we've had some of the usual responces for an ' Irish ' military forum :DThe great 'crime' of MMcG and other young men who watched the RUC and Paisleyite mobs trying to burn down their houses and murder their neighbours is that they struck back. They struck back at the brave little Tommies who came with the excuse of keeping the ' peace in OIreland ' just like tens of thousands of Brits have come before - only to end up trying to terroise the natives into submission, with the help of the UVF, UFF, UDA, RUC and UDR ofcourse.

    And now and again the Brit dirty tricks dept could arrange for their 'heros' in the SAS/UVF for a bomb to go off south of the border just to let southerners know who was master - with the Irish state standly "idly by" each time despite the private concerns about who was respondcible expressed by the Irish Army and some Guards.

    When the state stood "idly by " and let their masters in London run rough shod over human rights and any notion of a just society in the six counties, the cringing southern political controllers could only blame the victims who fought back. This I believe is at the heart of the reaction to Martin McG's presidential run.

    The irony is unreal.

    How we feted the Queen of England back in May despite her country being responsible for the deaths of countless Irish people. Ah yes, we can forgive and forget them because it's the "mature" thing to do, it's a sign of "how far we've come as a country".

    But when such forgiveness might threaten the cosy positions that the established political parties have then it's a completely different story, suddenly our "maturity" is not an issue, because Martin McGuinness being around is a "step too far", and "it's a little too early".

    The fools the fools.

    We forgive the main protaganist who started the war here AND kept it going yet we blame the 'croppy' when he sticks his head up and has the temerity to fight back.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,254 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    The main thing is that we give people a chance at a better non-violent path.
    Preventing someone from holding office because they were part of an armed civilian/terrorist action would have prevented todays statesmen such as Mandela from taking up office.

    Harping to a past of exclusion does nothing for the future of inclusion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39 Red Right Hand


    @ Morlar

    The situation evolved to where the means were more important than the end, a bloodlust that needed to be satisfied. Many who talk about civil rights forget that the IRA abused the civil rights of more catholics, nationalists and republicans than any other group. The IRA campaign was a disaster for the nationalist community and to the hopes that there could ever be a united Ireland. They tried and failed to bring about 'unity' through sectarian violence, there is real irony there. Now they have the temerity to try to have their former chief elected as head of a state they until relatively recently would have destroyed if given the opportunity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,271 ✭✭✭✭johngalway


    Chiparus wrote: »
    The main thing is that we give people a chance at a better non-violent path.
    Preventing someone from holding office because they were part of an armed civilian/terrorist action would have prevented todays statesmen such as Mandela from taking up office.

    Harping to a past of exclusion does nothing for the future of inclusion.

    When did Martin do 27 years in jail? What exact crimes did Mandela commit?

    The comparison is ridiculous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,254 ✭✭✭Chiparus


    johngalway wrote: »
    When did Martin do 27 years in jail? What exact crimes did Mandela commit?

    The comparison is ridiculous.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/from-terrorist-to-tea-with-the-queen-1327902.html

    Mandela was an anti-apartheid activist, and the leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC). He was found guilty in a court of law.

    He was considered a terrorist by those in power, an armed civilian freedom fighter to those who were excluded from power.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/20/newsid_4326000/4326975.stm

    The comparison is reasonable,


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    Even after that answer I'd still like to know, given that every Irish political party (bar the ULA) has stemmed from violence... do you think the history of Ireland only goes back 30 years?

    Well lets see.. Sky Sports invented football in 1992 and i know that Christopher Colubus had discovered Ireland just before that.

    I had my house carbon dated last night and the scientists were able to tell me that it's at least 25 years old, but no older that 27.75 years. So i'd say irish history can go back no further than 29.165 years to allow for planning permission and so on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭HellsAngel


    gatecrash wrote: »
    No, the reaction to McGuinness' run is because for most of his life he didnpt recognise the state that he now wants to be the political figurehead.
    Dev didn't recognise the state either and the IRA back in 1922 were vastly more hostile to it back then than the IRA ever were 1969 - 1996 and he became Pres without a fraction of the hulla belloo we hear now :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    Dev didn't recognise the state either and the IRA back in 1922 were vastly more hostile to it back then than the IRA ever were 1969 - 1996 and he became Pres without a fraction of the hulla belloo we hear now :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    Yeah, because when i said most of his (McGuinness') life i actually meant the year and a bit that the civil war lasted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,049 ✭✭✭discus


    HellsAngel wrote: »
    and he became Pres without a fraction of the hulla belloo we hear now :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    Yeah, just ignore that ****ing awful civil war.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 rewalk


    "Sinn Féin is a 32-County party striving for an end to partition on the island of Ireland and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic. The achievement of a United Ireland is within our reach and unity offers the best future for all the people of Ireland."

    Taken from the Sinn Fein website.

    This policy is in direct odds with the constitution of the republic that I serve. In it self that is not something too worrying different ideals are what make this country go forward. However when a man who was an enemy of this country runs for president and seems to have backing from large quarters of our society it makes me wonder, is this republic worth serving?

    Mc Guinness was head of an organisation that murdered soldiers and gardai who served this state, who gave the ultimate sacrifice protecting the people who now in their ignorance and foolishness believe Mc Guinness and his ilk were merely products of their backgrounds and who think that we should be able to forgive and forget the enemys of our state because they say their peacemakers now.

    Well heres the truth. Northern Ireland had no other choice. It was either take the killers into government or have them kill more people. They are not peacemakers they took power by murdering people. They forced a position by taking the blood of thousands. Reading some coverage of it you would think Mc Guinness was a third party negotiating the PIRA to peace. He was the PIRA. He has blood on his hands and it isn't romantic freedom fighting standing up against the oppressor blood its your childs blood.Its your mothers and your sisters, your wifes blood. Its the blood of a generation wasted by gangsters who run a great PR campaign.

    Why do we in the south wax so lyrical about Mc Guinness's past exploits because most of us didn't experience it. We don't bear any scars. We don't have the nightmares, we have never seen a body minus its head.

    Mc Guinness could very well get in the Aras. Ireland after all is a nation with no back bone and a voting public that has very little moral courage. Mc Guinness wants to subvert from within. The truth is he could run rings around most of us. He knows a lot of people think his 'armed struggle' wasn't perfect but it was justified. He knows if he keeps mentioning bloody sunday, the para reg, 1916 and war of independance we will forget his organisations acts of violence.

    If we cant understand that this man is an enemy of this state then maybe we deserve him as president what we do not deserve however was the sacrifices made by Pte Paddy Kelly, Gda Gary Sheehan, Garda Michael Clerkin and Detective Jerry Mc Cabe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    rewalk wrote: »
    "Sinn Féin is a 32-County party striving for an end to partition on the island of Ireland and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic. The achievement of a United Ireland is within our reach and unity offers the best future for all the people of Ireland."

    Taken from the Sinn Fein website.

    Welcome to boards !

    Which particular part of that is so repugnant to you / at odds with the constitution of Ireland ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 rewalk


    socialist republic and end to partition.


    Never mentioned anything being repugnant to me


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    There is nothing in that statement which is not compatible with the Constitution of Ireland. Also . . . the fact that SF have left wing policies has nothing whatsoever to do with the Presidency of Ireland, the president does not set economic policy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 rewalk


    Open to interpretation

    Never said the president of the Republic of Ireland has anything to do with economic policy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    rewalk wrote: »
    Open to interpretation

    Never said the president of the Republic of Ireland has anything to do with economic policy

    I am familiar with the Constitution. You are incorrect in your assertion that SF policy is

    'in direct odds with the constitution of the republic'.

    Replying with 'open to interpretation' is meaningless. Totally inadequate in demonstrating your assertion on this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 rewalk


    "It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island."

    "Sinn Féin is a 32-County party striving for an end to partition on the island of Ireland and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic. The achievement of a United Ireland is within our reach and unity offers the best future for all the people of Ireland."

    On reading them yes pretty similar.Now add in the context of a 30 year campaign of violence by SF/PIRA followed by a road to damascus conversion when they saw the writing on the wall and you will see why some people still interpert Sinn Fein's 'striving' worrying and a threat to this state and it's constitution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    rewalk wrote: »
    ... some people still interpert Sinn Fein's 'striving' worrying and a threat to this state and it's constitution.

    You said SF are a political party 'in direct odds with the constitution of the republic'. You are wrong.

    An individual choosing to interpret something in one particular way does not illustrate they are factually correct. Anyone can claim to interpret anything any way they want.

    You are using loaded terminology which originated from a loyalist/unionist viewpoint & is designed to blur the distinction between SF as a political party and the former Provisional IRA. You are referring almost exclusively to the past & ignoring the fact that the Provisional IRA did not evolve in a vacum chamber. There was a context and a basic inequality and state oppression which led events to happen.

    Also, you seem to completely ignore the McGuinness record in the peace process, a process SF initiated and have totally supported for the last 20 odd yrs.

    Finally, I believe you are quoting the amendment to article 2, not the 1937 BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN which was in place for the entirety of the troubles.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    Morlar wrote: »
    You said SF are a political party 'in direct odds with the constitution of the republic'. You are wrong.

    An individual choosing to interpret something in one particular way does not illustrate they are factually correct. Anyone can claim to interpret anything any way they want.

    You are using loaded terminology which originated from a loyalist/unionist viewpoint & is designed to blur the distinction between SF as a political party and the former Provisional IRA. You are referring almost exclusively to the past & ignoring the fact that the Provisional IRA did not evolve in a vacum chamber. There was a context and a basic inequality and state oppression which led events to happen.

    Also, you seem to completely ignore the McGuinness record in the peace process, a process SF initiated and have totally supported for the last 20 odd yrs.

    Finally, I believe you are quoting the amendment to article 2, not the 1937 BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN which was in place for the entirety of the troubles.


    Sorry, but i have to call BOLLOCKS on the above.

    SF did not initiate the Peace Process.

    The average person on the street, who was rightly sickened by what the republican and loyalist terrorist organisations got up to in 1993 started off the peace process.

    I'm talking about the IRA blowing up a 3 year old and a 12 year old in Warrington.
    The UDA responded with the Castlerock sectarian killings, shooting dead 4.
    The IRA detonate a bomb in Bishopsgate killing 1 civilian
    The Shankill road bombing 9 dead, the Greysteel massacre, 8 dead

    1993 was the year that the people said No More.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 448 ✭✭Master and commander


    Sinn Féin is a 32-County party striving for an end to partition on the island of Ireland and the establishment of a democratic socialist republic

    Yeeah. Good luck with that.

    That kinda thing might have held water in the 70's but lookit, its 2011, people have moved on and are no longer concerned with such things. Certainly very few in my generation and none of my friends could give two sh!ts about United Irelands and stuff. Its so 1798 like.
    No-one cares about that anymore.


Advertisement