Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

HellsAngel · 26-09-2011 11:22am

savagecabbages wrote: »

This is how it's done Mr O'Dea

HellsAngel · 26-09-2011 11:49am

goldie fish wrote: »

However, if the Minister for defence decrees that the candidate is unsuitable, who should the DF follow?
The Populist figurehead with a dubious terrorist past, or the elected legislator,responsible for defence and justice policy with a proven career in the legal practice?

" a dubious terrorist past " like Dev, Dan Breen, Sean McBride etc ?? ( and for the matter FG's coalation partners of the political wing of the Offical IRA the former Workers Party's Eammon Gilmore, Pat Rabbitte, Cathleen Lynch etc )

Anyway, the Pres is a ceremonial role, they have little to do with the actual running of the army or the insitiutions of the state. Most of this anti MMcG thing is the usual West Brit gang in Dr Sir Tony O'Reilly's comics i.e. Independent newspapers, crony's in RTE and aided and abetted by FG (which seems to be backfiring on them as the opinion polls show MMcG ahead of Mitchell).

savagecabbages · 26-09-2011 2:33pm

gatecrash wrote: »

I wouldn't call being part of an illegal organisation that didn't recognise the state as 'service'. But that's just me.

Nor would I!
I meant service in the DF as opposed to a minister being a fully fledged civilian, should have phrased that a little better...

cyrusdvirus · 26-09-2011 2:36pm

savagecabbages wrote: »

Nor would I!
I meant service in the DF as opposed to a minister being a fully fledged civilian, should have phrased that a little better...

OOPS!!

My bad. Apologies.

concussion · 26-09-2011 4:54pm

HellsAngel wrote: »

"Anyway, the Pres is a ceremonial role, they have little to do with the actual running of the army or the insitiutions of the state.

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.

Morlar · 26-09-2011 5:03pm

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.

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.

cyrusdvirus · 26-09-2011 5:05pm

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.

What? Like the Vatican or Rome?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have now officially jumped the shark, and welcome to the Mitty zone.

Morlar · 26-09-2011 5:08pm

gatecrash wrote: »

What? Like the Vatican or Rome?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have now officially jumped the shark, and welcome to the Mitty zone.

I agree - alleging that a President McGuinness would raid the Irish security archives is preposterous.

Also .. . not entirely sure the Vatican have been responsible for deaths of Irish peacekeepers or used Irish passports to commit assassinations.

PeterIanStaker · 26-09-2011 11:02pm

goldie fish wrote: »

What curragh mutiny?

He's confusing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curragh_mutiny

with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Army#Irish_Free_State known as the "Army Mutiny"

Leonidas BL · 26-09-2011 11:50pm

If he is commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann, will he see the need for more navy patrol ships?? Maybe even a few jet powered combat aircraft??

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 8:43am

Morlar wrote: »

I agree - alleging that a President McGuinness would raid the Irish security archives is preposterous.

Also .. . not entirely sure the Vatican have been responsible for deaths of Irish peacekeepers or used Irish passports to commit assassinations.

I also think that a persons religion has nothing to do with their allegiance, which is what you were implying in your borderline anti-Semitic remark.

bobbysands81 · 27-09-2011 9:14am

Poccington wrote: »

There's the little problem of the fact that his hands on experience came from time spent in an organisation that didn't quite recognise the DF's right to call themselves OnH.

As Articles 2 and 3 were in play at the time should our Defence Forces not have been protected Irish people and Irish land at the time?

nkay1985 · 27-09-2011 9:15am

Remy Disgusting Hawk wrote: »

Was a terrorist, its in the past and time to get over it.

Sure there are a few things I'm uncomfortable with, the murder of Irish soldiers and members of AGS to name but a few.. But the cease fire is something like 17 years old and between MMG and Adams they've done more to move this island towards peace than most anyone else in the last 90 years.

Sure wasn't Micheal Collins a killer too, and don't put on your romantic rose tinted glasses and try draw a difference between 'the old IRA and these shower' - murder is murder is murder, pure and simple.

And we should all remember that this state of born out of terror and killings, as were many other's.

I firmly believe that without SF leaders (in fact scrub 'SF') 'leaders' like MMG and Adams we'd still be fighting a large scale terrorist war here in Ireland.

Instead now we can worry about securing other people's borders against war and terror and enjoy the freedom peace has brought to Ireland.

mcko wrote: »

As was said after the Curragh Mutiny
Those who take the pay and wear the uniform of the state must be the non policitial servents of the state be they soldiers or policemen.

I hold the presidents commission and if the people of Ireland want to elect Martin then who am I to say the people of Ireland are wrong. If you don't like him as commander and chief you can always leave.
I am sure the Free State Army didn't like FF taking power in the 30s but hey ho that's the system we have .

Wish I could thank these posts twice!

The first post perfectly addresses those who question the validity of his candidacy. The man has done more for peace in the north than 99.99% of people. The counter-argument to this is usually "yeah but he also contributed to the violence up there". 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.

Those 30 years of the Troubles were a war, and warfare is not a cocktail party -- it is brutish. Indefensible acts take place during it. But I notice that many of those expressing opinions on the North and its citizens, and why they turned out as they did, hardly ever crossed the border. They are experts about a place they never inconvenienced themselves to get to know.
I grew up in the North during several decades of the Troubles, and I am content that the generation behind me has encountered only peace. But I haven't forgotten the discrimination, the two-tier society: I observed it all around me, I experienced it myself.
I wish the civil rights movement could have brought about reform, but it was not effective -- unfortunately, I don't believe advances would have happened without the IRA campaign. Bloodshed alone achieves nothing worthwhile, but it forced the main players to the negotiating table where progress was achieved.

Some say the price was too high, with so many dead and maimed. I say the North is a fair society now with a viable future.

Whether you agree with it or not, many, many people feel that without the armed conflict in the north, we would be nowhere near where we are now in terms of peace. Martin McGuinness may have taken the view at the time that armed conflict was needed but he was the major player in getting the IRA to accept peace and engage in the peace process. The Good Friday agreement is not that old but look at how far we've come since then and to say that a man who played such a key role in that evolution is not a fitting head of state is ridiculous in the extreme, in my opinion.

As for the second post, it sums up my view on the issue about the defence forces accepting him as commander-in-chief were he to be elected. If he becomes president of Ireland, it'll be up to the individual members of the defence forces to accept the will of the people and serve under him or leave. Fortunately, democracy is democracy, not just when it suits us - although FF would make you question that sometimes following the Nice and Lisbon treaties.

bobbysands81 · 27-09-2011 9:18am

savagecabbages wrote: »

When was the last time (if ever) a minister for defence had any first hand experience or service?

Ex leader of Fine Gael Richard Mulcahy ordered the death of 77 anti-Treaty prisoners.

Either we collectively move on or we can all dig up crap over each other. All political parties in the Republic have stemmed from violence (bar the ULA), there's dirt to smear on all parties but hypocrisy rules, only SF are taken to task on it and they're the only party that ensured that there was decommissioning, and without Adamas and McGuinness there'd still be abrutal war on in this island.

Look how mature we were in May welcoming the British Queen, look at the hypocrisy now. Looks like forgiving and forgetting is a one way street in Ireland.

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 9:20am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

As Articles 2 and 3 were in play at the time should our Defence Forces not have been protected Irish people and Irish land at the time?

Since 1922 Óglaigh na hÉireann has been the official title of the Irish Defence Forces, which are recognised by the Irish Government as the only legitimate armed forces in the indepentant state on the island of Ireland.

Not some bunch of terrorists who refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the republic.

So, no, your rather flimsy argument holds no water.

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 9:37am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Ex leader of Fine Gael Richard Mulcahy ordered the death of 77 anti-Treaty prisoners.

Either we collectively move on or we can all dig up crap over each other. All political parties in the Republic have stemmed from violence (bar the ULA), there's dirt to smear on all parties but hypocrisy rules, only SF are taken to task on it and they're the only party that ensured that there was decommissioning, and without Adamas and McGuinness there'd still be abrutal war on in this island.

Look how mature we were in May welcoming the British Queen, look at the hypocrisy now. Looks like forgiving and forgetting is a one way street in Ireland.

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.

Morlar · 27-09-2011 11:05am

gatecrash wrote: »

I also think that a persons religion has nothing to do with their allegiance, which is what you were implying in your borderline anti-Semitic remark.

On the contrary, there is nothing anti-semitic in what I said at all.

I am simply highlighting the ludicrousness of some of the gutter tactics going on in this election, basically the blatant scaremongering that is going unchallenged.

Morlar · 27-09-2011 11:09am

gatecrash wrote: »

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.

Does this mean that you will endorse this candidate if he can illustrate that he has left the previous position in good hands ?

Is this really the basis of your objection to Martin McGuinness standing for Presidency ?

Or are you, like Joan Burton, just clutching at straws here?

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 11:10am

Morlar wrote: »

On the contrary, there is nothing anti-semitic in what I said at all.

I am simply highlighting the ludicrousness of some of the gutter tactics going on in this election, basically the blatant scaremongering that is going unchallenged.

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

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 11:19am

Morlar wrote: »

Does this mean that you will endorse this candidate if he can illustrate that he has left the previous position in good hands ?

Is this really the basis of your objection to Martin McGuinness standing for Presidency ?

Or are you, like Joan Burton, just clutching at straws here?

It was John, not Joan. FG not Labour.

And I've been quite clear as to whether or not i would endorse the candidate throughout this thread. I stated i will not vote for him. He has said nothing to make me change my mind. I also stated that i would vote for him before Norris as i feel he has been more open about his past. Just not open enough to make me vote for him. I stated that i would have more respect for McGuinness than Adams, and nothing i have seen from Adams has made me change my mind there either.

I would not like to see him voted into the Aras, as i don't believe he would make a good president.

And i feel that his talents would be better suited to an area where he has spent his professional political life so far, that is in Northern Ireland where he HAS been given a mandate by the people, and IMHO should not be running for election down here until that mandate has been met.

Morlar · 27-09-2011 11:35am

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.

bobbysands81 · 27-09-2011 1:38pm

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?

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 1:49pm

bobbysands81 wrote: »

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.

HellsAngel · 27-09-2011 1:51pm

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

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

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 1:56pm

HellsAngel wrote: »

John 'Unionist' you mean 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.

nkay1985 · 27-09-2011 2:05pm

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.

HellsAngel · 27-09-2011 2:47pm

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

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.

cyrusdvirus · 27-09-2011 2:54pm

HellsAngel wrote: »

I must say we've had some of the usual responces for an ' Irish ' military forum 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.

Red Right Hand · 27-09-2011 3:21pm

HellsAngel wrote: »

I must say we've had some of the usual responces for an ' Irish ' military forum 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.

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.

Morlar · 27-09-2011 4:03pm

Red Right Hand wrote: »

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.

bobbysands81 · 27-09-2011 7:26pm

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?

bobbysands81 · 27-09-2011 7:33pm

HellsAngel wrote: »

I must say we've had some of the usual responces for an ' Irish ' military forum 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.

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.

Chiparus · 27-09-2011 8:00pm

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.

Red Right Hand · 27-09-2011 8:25pm

@ 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.

johngalway · 27-09-2011 10:26pm

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.

Chiparus · 27-09-2011 10:37pm

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,

cyrusdvirus · 28-09-2011 7:37am

bobbysands81 wrote: »

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.

HellsAngel · 28-09-2011 11:51am

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:

cyrusdvirus · 28-09-2011 12:05pm

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.

discus · 28-09-2011 2:16pm

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.

rewalk · 28-09-2011 10:41pm

"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.

Morlar · 28-09-2011 11:34pm

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 ?

rewalk · 28-09-2011 11:57pm

socialist republic and end to partition.

Never mentioned anything being repugnant to me

Morlar · 29-09-2011 12:06am

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.

rewalk · 29-09-2011 12:19am

Open to interpretation

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

Morlar · 29-09-2011 12:33am

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.

rewalk · 29-09-2011 12:48am

"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.

Morlar · 29-09-2011 1:23am

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.

cyrusdvirus · 29-09-2011 8:07am

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.

Master and commander · 29-09-2011 10:19am

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.

Martin McGuinness commander of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Comments