Martin McGuinness

[Alan Medic]

steveo Wrote:

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

> 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.

I'd like to know steveo when you think year 1 was with regard to the UK government trying very hard not to kill people? Nothing before this time counts it would seem. In my view everything has a cause and an effect. Something happens because of something else happening previously. This is not a tit for tat post like you started, though you quickly decided it was Mick and me (I presume) who wanted to continue it.

Let?s say for your sake the UK government has always acted like saints, no one innocent was ever killed by anyone representing them. The IRA are murderous bastards who kill innocent people. The McGuinness era, for want of a better term, is but a snapshot of a long history. To look at the snapshot and not try and understand why it's so grim is to simply choose to put yourself and anyone else who thinks like you, up on a high horse. An ignorant high horse.

I detest violence like most people. It shows a complete lack of awareness of how lucky one is to have a life. It happens through lack of clarity. But if you want to take a stance like yours in a debate like this, I suggest you read a bit of history. You may revaluate where year 1 is.

[Otta]

An issue I have with the IRA stuff is that they would tell anyone that would listen that they were soldiers at war. Well there are rules to war, and taking women in the night and murdering them because they'd shown compassion to a wounded British soldier... Well that's kind of outside of the rules.

Plus it's just plain nasty and unjustifiable to anyone but the most blinkered fucktards.

[rendelharris]

Otta Wrote:

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

> An issue I have with the IRA stuff is that they

> would tell anyone that would listen that they were

> soldiers at war. Well there are rules to war, and

> taking women in the night and murdering them

> because they'd shown compassion to a wounded

> British soldier... Well that's kind of outside of

> the rules.

>

> Plus it's just plain nasty and unjustifiable to

> anyone but the most blinkered fucktards.

I agree 100% - but then so is gunning down a bunch of unarmed demonstrators. The fact that both sides have managed to put this behind them offers some hope.

[Mick Mac]

Otta, as I said above the comparable for this type of behaviour is loyalist terrorists. The Shankill Butchers were picking up random Catholics and carving them up in the back of black taxis.

[DaveR]

"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 don't buy for one second that this was intended to 'start a debate', particularly when accompanied by "...and how a UK government abused it's own people arguably to the point of genocide." The opening post represents (at best) the most one-eyed and partisan possible account of the man and his many terrible crimes, with which on the basis of the thread that follows almost every other poster (unsurprisingly) disagrees with, to a greater or lesser extent.

My own view is that McGuinness was an unrepentant murderer who saw a chance for political power at the same time as his 'army' was in serious trouble. It may be that what started as opportunism then became something more tangible but he was one of the worst that emerged from a generally terrible period of British history.

[Otta]

DaveR Wrote:

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

> My own view is that McGuinness was an unrepentant

> murderer who saw a chance for political power at

> the same time as his 'army' was in serious

> trouble. It may be that what started as

> opportunism then became something more tangible

> but he was one of the worst that emerged from a

> generally terrible period of British history.

Well said.

[Otta]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Otta, as I said above the comparable for this type

> of behaviour is loyalist terrorists. The Shankill

> Butchers were picking up random Catholics and

> carving them up in the back of black taxis.

I know that there was a lot of nasty stuff done by loyalists too. Doesn't excuse or justify anything, just means there was nasty murdering scum on both sides of the fence.

[Alan Medic]

Otta Wrote:

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

> An issue I have with the IRA stuff is that they

> would tell anyone that would listen that they were

> soldiers at war. Well there are rules to war, and

> taking women in the night and murdering them

> because they'd shown compassion to a wounded

> British soldier... Well that's kind of outside of

> the rules.

>

> Plus it's just plain nasty and unjustifiable to

> anyone but the most blinkered fucktards.

Extract from 'British War crimes'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes

'By the summer of 1918, the Military Bureau had documented 355 separate incidents of violations of the laws and customs of war by British servicemen along the Western Front'

[Alan Medic]

@DaveR

If anyone is being one eyed it the posters here who judge McGuinness simply for what he did or was responsible for. Not taking into account why events led to the troubles in NI is missing the point. I'm just pleased for the people there that things have changed somewhat. As most people have said this change wouldn't have occured without McGuinness. Whatever you see his motives as being doesn't matter. Things have changed for the better and for that I am grateful.

As for the point that the UK government abused its own people, maybe it didn't as it didn't consider the minority in NI as its own people. It certainly seemed like it.

[????]

The question we can't really answer though AM is if things would have changed faster and without as many deaths and lives ruined without people like McGuinness, the IRA, the UDA and Paisley. My suspicion is they would have...

[Alan Medic]

I don?t agree Quids. The Troubles brought these people/organisations to prominence. If there had been civil rights for the minority in the North it?s likely the IRA would not have resurfaced as a force. However the ruling Unionists did not appear to want to share opportunities with their Republican neighbours. When objections raised by the pacifist civil rights movement failed, trouble was inevitable. Only after years of futile killings did people finally see that it wasn?t going to achieve anything. Losses became unbearable for both sides. I?m not sure what path could have been taken to reach the current state of affairs in NI that would have been less harrowing and shorter as you allude to.

[red devil]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> If anyone is being one eyed it the posters here

> who judge McGuinness simply for what he did or was

> responsible for. Not taking into account why

> events led to the troubles in NI is missing the

> point.

When discussing McGuinees you do have to understand the context of what led to The Troubles, and you do have to acknowledge and acclaim his pivotal role in the peace process, but you also have to acknowledge and condemn his active role in a sustained campaign of terrorism and murder, a lot of it indiscriminate. He didn't have to go down that route, there were alternatives, he chose the gun and bomb over the ballot box.

The OP provided a romanticised viewpoint of McGuiness looking through a green tinted lens, and for that he was rightly called out on...

[Alan Medic]

The ballot box wasn't much of an option in those times RD. If you want to read why here's a link, though I'm sure there's much more recorded elsewhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Civil_Rights_Association

[JoeLeg]

???? Wrote:

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

> The question we can't really answer though AM is

> if things would have changed faster and without as

> many deaths and lives ruined without people like

> McGuinness, the IRA, the UDA and Paisley. My

> suspicion is they would have...

If it wasn't them it would've been someone else; there were enough extremists on both sides to fill all the vacant slots for both sides of the conflict. And I doubt they would've been any more pleasant.

[Mick Mac]

???? Wrote:

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

> The question we can't really answer though AM is

> if things would have changed faster and without as

> many deaths and lives ruined without people like

> McGuinness, the IRA, the UDA and Paisley. My

> suspicion is they would have...

The truth of the matter is that after Bloody Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very long time.

Its the most extreme act by any advanced western government on it's own people in the last 50 years.

[Mick Mac]

The truth of the matter is that after Bloody Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very long time.

Its the most extreme act by any advanced western government on it's own people in the last 50 years.

Lest we forget: 14 men and boys

https://youtu.be/vkOpgr1ElXg

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Loz Wrote:

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

> 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!

It's not an irony at all. They were both bullies and shitheads.

[JoeLeg]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> The truth of the matter is that after Bloody

> Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very

> long time.

> Its the most extreme act by any advanced western

> government on it's own people in the last 50

> years.

>

>

> Lest we forget: 14 men and boys

> https://youtu.be/vkOpgr1ElXg

While - obviously - agreeing with the horrendousness of Bloody Sunday, the act itself wasn't the government; that was a total failure of command and control within the British Army. I'd agree that politicians became accomplices after the fact with the vile cover-up. But on the day there's no one to blame but the Para's, who were out for blood.

I'm acquainted with someone whose father was a battalion commander in N Ireland, and was there on Bloody Sunday (he wasn't a Para). He recalls with frightening clarity how he knew, from the start, that the Para's were out of control. He said you could smell it in he air, he knew people were going to die.

[DaveR]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> The truth of the matter is that after Bloody

> Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very

> long time.

> Its the most extreme act by any advanced western

> government on it's own people in the last 50

> years.

>

>

> Lest we forget: 14 men and boys

> https://youtu.be/vkOpgr1ElXg

Yet more historical selectivity. How many British soldiers had been killed in IRA attacks in the months leading up to Bloody Sunday? Shot by snipers, killed by bombs, kidnapped and executed? Bloody Sunday was a terrible tragedy for which the British Army was wholly responsible but it wasn't the trigger for IRA violence- that was already in full swing.

[JoeLeg]

Yes, but Bloody Sunday was the most fantastic recruiting sergeant for the IRA. It could be argued that before that day there was a chance of cooler heads coming to the negotiating table. But afterwards there was no path that lead to talks.

It stands as a prime example of what happens when those in command lose perspective and employ entirely the wrong tools for the job; the Para's in the early 70's were incredibly violent in their outlook, and should never have been anywhere near such a conflict. I suppose from that point of view it was inevitable that such a tragedy should occur.

Bloody Sunday gave MM and others like him the free hand to pursue whatever course they chose.

[DaveR]

Agree with the first two paragraphs Joe but the facts suggest it was less of a tipping point than now perceived (and it suits the Republican narrative to keep it that way). The IRA was carrying out armed attacks pretty much daily in the second half of 1971 and that carried on after Bloody Sunday essentially unchanged.

[JoeLeg]

There's no doubt the IRA was already going full throttle, that's one of the reasons the Para's were a terrible choice for deployment. They were fed up of being attacked and unable to fight back and were a unit with shockingly low levels of restraint. Of course at the time it was thought that the locals needed that kind of treatment to whip them into line!

My point is that once you've murdered a load of civilians you've somewhat crossed the Rubicon where negotiation is concerned. The IRA were handed a PR dream, gift-wrapped and dropped into their lap. It justified their actions to date and made the local population believe that the British really were the enemy. I personally believe that Bloody Sunday was a tipping point because of its effect on the public perception of what was happening.

[Otta]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > An issue I have with the IRA stuff is that they

> > would tell anyone that would listen that they

> were

> > soldiers at war. Well there are rules to war,

> and

> > taking women in the night and murdering them

> > because they'd shown compassion to a wounded

> > British soldier... Well that's kind of outside

> of

> > the rules.

> >

> > Plus it's just plain nasty and unjustifiable to

> > anyone but the most blinkered fucktards.

>

> Extract from 'British War crimes'

>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes

>

> 'By the summer of 1918, the Military Bureau had

> documented 355 separate incidents of violations of

> the laws and customs of war by British servicemen

> along the Western Front'

What's yopur point AM, because British soldiers had behaved badly that made it all okay?

No.

British soldiers still on occasion behave badly, it's still not okay. And it still doesn't ecuse or justify anything. Taking people out of their houses (in front of their kids) and executing them for trying to help someone, that is not justifiable if done by the state, it's not justifiable if done by the police, and it's certainly not justifiable if done by a jumped up bully that got off on hurting people.

[Alan Medic]

No. You brought up the subject of rules of war as if the IRA were the only ones to have broken them.

[Laddy Muck]

1 :)) :))