Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But surely MM, the logical extension of your argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves as legitimate soldiers against the British state, then the British state would have equal entitlement to use force in return, as they would any attacking army?


Anyway, this is all muddying the waters - McGuinness is believed to have ordered the death of many a civilian.

Interesting points on the Andrew Neil show last night, with Portillo offering the view that no Conservative govt could've finalised the peace process, as so many Tories had been personally targeted by the IRA, and Alan Davies suggesting that there was no way it would've succeeded without McGuinness and Adams at the centre, as they were basically the only ones who could sell it to the rest of the Republicans.


I'm not sure I totally buy Tebbits view that they did it out of fear of prosecution, but certainly I think they knew the game was up as far as violence went. As others on here have commented, they weren't feared like before, and MI6 was deep into them. For both sides it became, I think, a chance to end it and salvage what could be salvaged, and I still think it stands as an example of moving on from conflict, however distasteful some of the compromises may be.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But surely MM, the logical extension of your

> argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves as

> legitimate soldiers against the British state,

> then the British state would have equal

> entitlement to use force in return, as they would

> any attacking army?


Loz - the IRA aside. Do you support the killing of innocent people by the state? being the subject of my post above.

steveo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Whatever the mistakes the government and its

> agents made, and dirty tricks, including murder,

> that it is/was guilty of, murdering the innocents

> was not, I suggest, ever its plan.


Even when it was planned?

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Anyway, this is all muddying the waters -

> > McGuinness is believed to have ordered the death

> > of many a civilian.

>

> What are your sources for that comment Loz?


I'm not sure I should really have to justify the word 'believed', but...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/martin-mcguinness-took-ira-victims-secrets-grave-say-families/


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39337760


http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/victims-reject-mcguinness-claims-that-ira-did-not-target-civilians-1-5657196


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/martin-mcguinness-dies-enniskillen-bomb-victims-son-will-remember-sf-chief-as-terrorist-35551326.html

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But surely MM, the logical extension of your

> > argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves as

> > legitimate soldiers against the British state,

> > then the British state would have equal

> > entitlement to use force in return, as they would

> > any attacking army?

>

> Loz - the IRA aside. Do you support the killing of

> innocent people by the state? being the subject of

> my post above.


Of course not.


But I do wonder how many of those being claimed as 'innocent civilians' were actually members of the IRA? I doubt we'll ever know the answer to that one.


And how many 'legitimate targets' of the IRA were no such thing, from civilian cooks (who happened to work at an army base) right up to the retired Mountbatten (not to mention the 14- and 15-year-olds also on board).

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > But surely MM, the logical extension of your

> > > argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves

> as

> > > legitimate soldiers against the British

> state,

> > > then the British state would have equal

> > > entitlement to use force in return, as they

> would

> > > any attacking army?

> >

> > Loz - the IRA aside. Do you support the killing

> of

> > innocent people by the state? being the subject

> of

> > my post above.

>

> Of course not.

>

> But I do wonder how many of those being claimed as

> 'innocent civilians' were actually members of the

> IRA?


And, at the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, I don't think the British Prime Minister would stand up in Parliament and make a public apology for the state collusion in the killing of a specific person, if there was even a hint of that person being a member of the IRA.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> And, at the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious,

> I don't think the British Prime Minister would

> stand up in Parliament and make a public apology

> for the state collusion in the killing of a

> specific person, if there was even a hint of that

> person being a member of the IRA.


You're going to have to explain that one, MM - I don't follow the reference.

Ah, makes more sense now.


Well, you have gone from "the killing of innocent people by the state" to "collusion", rather quickly. Which rather leads to sticky ground as there was arguably a fair bit of unofficial collusion between the IRA and the RoI government as well, especially within the Gardai.


But, at least the British PM 'fessed up and apologised, following its own investigation. That is more than the allegedly once-IRA Chief of Staff McGuinness ever did.

Why do people insist upon comparing the ethics and conduct of


1) A terrorist organisation - who are "expected" to behave appallingly and damage people

with

2) A democratic government - who we expect to protect the people


If your best defence against the abuses of our UK government is to say "but the terrorists did this" we are on a sticky wicket.

Well, I have noticed that the behaviour you describe normally occurs when someone tries to justify and/or romanticise the behaviour of said terrorists, using words like, "A man who spoke out against the abuses of a minority, who took up arms when talking failed, who killed horribly for a purpose he believed to be justified by abhorrent abuses by the state, who risked his life for a fair society"

I refer you to my earlier comment Mick.


The UK government was doing what it thought best to protect its people - sometimes by nefarious means it seems - but nevertheless was probably trying very hard NOT to kill the innocent, while your 'freedom fighters' were doing the opposite.

Mick, aren't you turning the whole thing around? This thread started about Martin McGuinness. I entirely agree that British conduct in Northern Ireland has been utterly disgraceful over the years, but if you can't excuse that by saying "Ah the IRA did this" then surely it cuts both ways - especially as many in the IRA and their supporters would say the IRA are/were only "terrorists" in the eyes of the UK government, in their eyes they were a legitimate army fighting an invading force?


I respect your passion for your beliefs and to an extent I share those beliefs, but you can't say:


"If your best defence against the abuses of our UK government is to say "but the terrorists did this" we are on a sticky wicket."


without


"If your best defence against the abuses by the IRA is to say "but the UK government did this" we are on a sticky wicket."


being the obvious flipside of the coin.

I accept the points made in the above posts.


The thread changed direction in my mind when RD asked me a direct question about police/army etc - I responded to this by citing why I feel they have on several occasions let the people down. The bar must be high for any government that operates within international law.


The reason for setting up this thread was not to "honour" MM particularly, but instead to start a debate which I find many people here normally very reticent from getting involved in. My OP said, I think, this is a chance to look back.


And despite knowing that I am pushing a boulder up a hill and in a minority of 1, I like the fact that people have engaged. It's good to talk/argue.


I have already said that the Queen has come out of this whole process very well in my eyes. I also feel that David Cameron has had the awkward job of issuing two public apologies in the Commons during his time in office but he has stood up and not shirked the responsibility. These apologies are extremely rare events by any Government.


What the IRA did was absolutely horrific. Everyone knows that. But the comparison should be loyalist terrorists (Shankill Butchers etc), not UK government.


But I accept it was a dirty war.

That's a fair point Mick (that the IRA should be compared to the UDF etc).


I guess the whole thing about McGuinness is that even many people who agree that what he had on the credit side of the ledger outweighed what he had on the debit side don't think the two things cancel each other out. Still...


Let's just hope we never have to face the same choices ourselves (I certainly can't say for sure that if I'd grown up a Catholic in Belfast in the 60s and 70s I wouldn't have joined the IRA) and that there's a brighter future for all, despite a few eejits who can't let go (vide the police bomb the other day).


When I was younger I was quite passionate (well, to the extent of going on the odd march) about Irish unification, now in my dotage I feel more like (former IRA man) Brendan Behan in "Confessions of an Irish Rebel" (apologies for any inaccuracies, I know I have a copy but can't find it just now):


"We're a group of small islands in the Atlantic that Europe doesn't like and America doesn't want; you can't help thinking we'd be better off clubbing together than keeping on fighting each other."

As I said a couple of days ago, although I am critical of McGuinness' early life, he played a crucial role in the peace deal and it was extremely brave (indeed, life endangering) of him to actually come to the table.


And I love the fact that he and Ian Paisley became such good friends in the end. It was truly one of life's great ironies!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Gone to the better hunting grounds during this local ongoing dry spell.
    • The Dreamliner has an impeccable service history, you are more likely to get mugged on the way to the airport than having any issue with your flight, that's how safe it is!  Have a great trip.
    • Maybe. Does that kill grass? If so, possibly the same dog that has left its poo outside my house - pretty sure it's not fox poo.
    • Here you are, intexasatthemoment (you seem to have been in Texas for a very long time!) We went to three of the recommended places yesterday,  as they were all in the same road (just near Wallington)  and I needed to give the car a run to avoid another slap on the wrist from my garage (and another new battery). Here's my findings. BARNES Parking We thought we would go here first as it was the earliest to close on a Sunday (3pm). There was no apparent entrance or anywhere to park. One notice said do not park on grass verge, and another one said staff cars only! Flittons was opposite but I'd already passed the entrance, so I had to drive down the road, turn round at the next available place (covered in signs saying do not park here) and park in Flittons car park! Plants Barnes  specialise in hardy perennials, so that was basically what they had, but an excellent selection, and many more unusual plants (or at least, plants you probably wouldn't find in a garden centre), eg Corydalis,  lots of different varieties of Epimediums, Trollius, some lovely Phygelius, lots of different ferns). The plants were divided into sections according to whether they needed sun or shade or could cope with both. They had a particularly good selection of  shade loving plants. There was really useful information above  each group of plants, which meant you didn't have to look at individual labels. All the plants looked in good health and  very well cared for. They don't produce a printed catalogue, but they  said their plant list was online (I haven't looked yet). I assume most of  the plants they have at any one time are when it's their flowering season (if they flower). I wasn't intending to buy anything, though was very tempted, but I'd definitely go here again once I've sorted out my overgrown garden. Other Stuff Don't think they sell pots, compost, etc. No cafe/tea room and I didn't see a loo, but Flittons is just over the road. FLITTONS  Parking Easy to park Plants Sorry, but mostly terrible. There was one section with vegetables and the rest was flowering plants. There was a general feeling of delapidation. Some of what was on display was actually dead (surely it would only take a minute to remove dead plants) and a lot of the rest was very poorly maintained, eg gone to seed, weedy, apparently unwatered, or with a lot of dead leaves. There was a notice asking for volunteers to work there, so I can only assume they can't afford to pay staff. Other stuff There was a notice to a play barn (?) saying invited people only, so I think they must host kids' parties or something. They redeemed themselves with a cosy little cafe with savoury stuff, nice cakes, iced chai and oat milk, and a loo. Also a selection of books and CDs on sale for charity. If you want an Andrews Sisters CD, you can find one here. There is a small shop with gift shop type stuff and a display of the history of Flittons, which apparently is family owned since the sixties (I think it was). I suspect that the arrival of Dobbies down the road must have greatly affected Flittons' fortunes, which is sad. DOBBIES  Parking Easy in theory once you had navigated a rather narrow entrance, but it was very busy so it took a while to find a space. Plants  Lots of plants, well maintained but I imagine their turnover is high. Lots of nice bedding plants for hanging baskets, window boxes etc  to cater for all tastes (ie some of it wasn't mine, but fine if you like those horrid little begonias (my opinion only) but they did have some nice (in my opinion) stuff as well. I was tempted but decided to buy from North Cross Road market. Fair selection of climbers, various different Clematis etc. I'd be happy to buy plants from here. The prices seemed reasonable and they were in good condition. Other stuff  It's a big garden centre with all that entails these days, so a large area selling garden furniture and storage, tools, animal collars, pots, all the usual stuff you would expect. Very helpful staff. There's a cafe which we didn't check out, charging points for electric cars, a Waitrose (no idea how big, we didn't look). Only on our way out did we see that there was a drive through "express section" for compost etc, which was annoying as I wanted compost and hadn't seen any anywhere,  but I was getting tired by that time. Just Down the Road A ten minute drive away is Wilderness Island, a nature reserve in Carshalton, which is well worth a visit. We heard eleven different kinds of bird (according to Merlin) and saw a Kingfisher flying down the tiny river!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...