Martin McGuinness

[Loz]

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.

[JoeLeg]

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.

[Mick Mac]

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]

IRA aside haha

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.

Planting car bombs is an indiscriminate killer

[Alan Medic]

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?

[red devil]

I'm playing IRA Bingo, I just need ''freedom fighters'' for a Full House!....

[Mick Mac]

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?

[steveo]

Err... no, even when it was planned

[Loz]

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]

steveo Wrote:

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

> Err... no, even when it was planned

Doh - if it's planned, then it's their plan, which you said it wasn't, ever.

[Loz]

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).

[steveo]

Mick, did you just set me a trap? If so, I don't feel trapped.

You know and I know that what I meant was that the UK government never had any intention of murdering civilians (although innocents may certainly have died) while, it is my suggestion that the IRA did.

[Mick Mac]

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]

steveo Wrote:

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

> Mick, did you just set me a trap? If so, I don't

> feel trapped.

>

ok - you made me laugh. :)

[Loz]

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.

[Mick Mac]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/12/pat-finucane-report-david-cameron-apologises

[Loz]

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.

[Mick Mac]

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.

[Loz]

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"

[steveo]

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.

[rendelharris]

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.

[adonirum]

With the media coverage quite rightly concentrating on the horrific events at Westminster, anyone else see the irony of his funeral being relegated to an "also-ran" news item on all the channels? !!

[Mick Mac]

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.

[rendelharris]

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."

[Loz]

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!