[Closed] Martin McGuinness

Why would McGuiness want to shake hands with the poster girl for an archaic repressive ruling class?

I wouldn't waste a cup of urine on him if he was ablaze, personally.

[i]Is it really such a big deal, Queenie shaking hands with Martin?[/i]

Well, given the labyrinthine course of Irish history since Oliver Cromwell rather annoyed them, yes.

It's as significant that Martin McGuiness has agreed to it as the Queen has; at the time of the troubles, they were to each other, the enemy.

I think the reason it's being hailed as a big event has less to do with the controversy of the Queen shaking hands with someone responsible for terrorist atrocities than it is a representation of how far we've come.

I heard an interview with the father of the child killed in the Warrington bomb congratulating both sides for just this reason. It was pretty amazing to hear him speak so compassionately about the person ultimately responsible for the death of his son.

With rare exceptions conflicts get resolved around a table, its just a sahme that in the thousands of years of human history that we haven't got round to doing the table bit first.

Hurrah for common sense 😯

Is it really such a big deal, Queenie shaking hands with Martin?

MM has had a long journey from murdering provo bastard, to someone who genuinely seems to want to see a permanent peaceful resolution to the conflict.

What he's doing now, by this act of unity and compromise, is further isolating the mad sods on both sides who want to continue the bloodshed.

So.... yes - it is a big deal! Its part of a process that must have already saved countless lives

In a better world, we wouldn't know who either of them was.

MM has had a long journey from murdering provo bastard, to someone who genuinely seems to want to see a permanent peaceful resolution to the conflict.

[i]What he's doing now, by this act of unity and compromise, is further isolating the mad sods on both sides who want to continue the bloodshed.[/i]

Agreed. And, as Greg said, it's also about the fact that [i]they[/i], i.e. he [i]and[/i] Queenie have agreed to do it, that means that this is a big deal on both sides.

In a better world, we wouldn't know who either of them was.

THIS

I dont know how the conflict will ultimately be resolved and whther we will ever give up or colony and the planted population.
However it gets resolved the reduced number of deaths is a good thing

[s]MM[/s] The british governmnet has had a long journey from murdering [s]provo [/s]bastard, to someone who genuinely seems to want to see a permanent peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Lets try and take a balanced view eh. Neither side was exactly saintly and lets be honest our invasion of Ireland, ignoring the ballot and subsequent partition etc was what started and maintained it all.

People want to be free ...except the ones we put there to be loyal obviously who are still doing their job 350 years later and being loyal to the crwon.

I did mean to add "and so has the Queen" JY

The thing is that its just so pronounced with Martin McGuiness. Its obvious he's had a huge damascene conversion along the way from violence as a solution, to not only peaceful means, but also the complete margalisation of his former comrades who still sadly seem committed to 'the armed struggle'

Credit where its due. He's risking a lot by this. The queens risking eff all, quite frankly

Indeed Binners there has been a huge shift within the IRA from the armalite to the ballot box...at times in the "troubles" such a change was inconceivable.

I suspect it took "men of action" to be able to carry the "troops"

On a humourous note, I hope he leans forward to Queenie and says in his Norn Iron accent "I know where you live".

As an aside, an important part of the peace process is reconcilliation and the ability to move on. If a one time terrorist can show a deep commitment to a peaceful solution then we can all learn from that, otherwise you remain in a cycle of mistrust.

He's a disgrace to the IRA.

She shook hands with this guy, he was allegedly a murdering barsteward at some point in his life.

[img] [/img]

I suspect it was the fact that the IRA were beaten in the field by the british army that prompted their 'conversion'. When you're reduced to bombing Bognor Regis (no bad thing) you may as well pack up and get what you can from the establishment, which is what the IRA did.

He's a disgrace to the IRA.

His faction got the upper hand so he'll be the one doing any shooting.

Very positive - a step forward for peace.

I suspect it was the fact that the IRA were beaten in the field by the british army that prompted their 'conversion'.

You cannot realy beat terrorismm when ideas that support it are deeply emmbeded in the nations psyche

One wonders why they had to decomission weapons and say they would stop bombing/violence if they were beaten...you could possibly argue contained but beaten is just chest beating on your part.

Not chest beating but a statement of fact. Yes the ideals of republicanism are still strong, but given a population thouroughly sick of it all, and a few economic concessions that can be quietly withdrawn in the future, the so-called 'path to peace' was an easy road for MM and his cronies to take.

So what are we supposed to do? Stonewall the Repulican community in NI and pretend they don't exist?

The Mandela pic is quiet apt, for the ANC committed a number of acts of terrorism in SA in the 1970s/1980s. The minority government also committed an even greater number of atrocities.

There came a point where the bravest option wasn't to keep fighting but to find a way to bury the hatchet. Both sides had a lot to lose.

I think it's it s an important step for both sides and shows just how far the peace process in Northern Ireland has come.

Interestingly it was probably 9-11 that was the final nail in the coffin of the republican movement and the resulted in the permanent removal of the gun from Irish politics.

They were effectively beaten from the mid-nineties.

Ditto what Geetee72 said. i didn't see the Warrington dad, but Breakfast news had a guy whose wife and daughter were killed 20-odd years ago. Made me cry, the level of forgiveness he was able to give. Very humbling.

On a humourous note, I hope he leans forward to Queenie and says in his Norn Iron accent "I know where you live".

She can probably reply that she knows where he is too! 😀

The road to reconciliation is always punctuated by shaking hands (whether literally or figuratively) with those you once despised. Some will be left behind because they can't move on. And everyone is better off for their non-involvement in the process.

One day the island will be united as it should always have been. Probably not in any of our lifetimes. But one day.

When are you effectively beat - is this the same as being "beaten" as you originally claimed?

1,000 rifles
3 tonnes of Semtex
20–30 heavy machine guns
7 surface-to-air missiles (unused)
7 flamethrowers
1,200 detonators
20 rocket-propelled grenade launchers
100 handguns
100+ hand grenades[77]

This is what they gave up to decomiisioning

but given a population thouroughly sick of it all

I am not derialing the thread to debate this as this is a Good thing and it is progress

DD I do hope we finally give it back but we have many other colonies we wont give back and claim the settled population as "british".

Credit where its due. He's risking a lot by this. The queens risking eff all, quite frankly

On a humourous note, I hope he leans forward to Queenie and says in his Norn Iron accent "I know where you live".

"Don't worry about that, I'll have some of my people come round in a car and pick you up"

Junkyard - Member
DD I do hope we finally give it back

Should the population have a say?

Definately a big moment. Let's hope it is just another step along the way...

Must say, there are some pretty unreformed views being expressed ^^ 🙁

It would have been a bit difficult for MM not to meet the Queen, given the reception she received in Ireland. Would have appeared outdated if he couldn't be as civil as the country he wants to join and that would probably have harmed his cause.

I can't see a United Ireland in my lifetime. I always thought European integration would make both sides irrelevant but now I just can't see the NI population looking at the Irish economy and thinking they'd like a bit of that in the next couple of decades.

well, he's been taking the Queens shilling for long enough (well known tout) so I can't see the issue really, even if he did murder her cousin.

I don't think its a big deal at all, nothing more than a PR stunt that Martin and Betty couldn't sidestep as SF are going down the political route now.

In terms of how it will affect things here, it won't change a jot, there are still plenty of morons on both sides of the divide who are hell bent on continuing the sickening secarianism that has divided the country for many years.

Currently the province is getting marked up with flags for the so called, 'glorious twelfth' nothing more than an excuse for drunken hoods to throw some stones and petrol bombs at the police.

Only last night this 'flag guarding' created this nice piece of news;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18603574

However depressing the above may sound things are slowly getting better here but its more to do with education from mixed schools and responsible parents teaching their children to have respect for all people regardless of background, not what happens up on the hill.

Eventually there will be a vote on the future of NI but I doubt if it will be in my lifetime. The Republic of Ireland need to pay off the loans first to be able to afford to pay the salaries of the 35% of peopl employed by the civil service here!

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Some interesting posts. Having lived in Belfast all my life, it's been an interesting last few days, with friends and the like all having their opinions.

I don't have much to say about it, I only get annoyed thinking about the past 30 years and beyond. A step in the right direction? Not sure, it's a step in some direction no doubt.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

It is my sincere hope that HM makes a public proclamation of gratitude to Mr.McGuinness and announces that he will be awarded the OBE for his many years of hard work on behalf of British intelligence.

😈

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

There's always someone that rolls out this trite untrue bollocks.

Why is this untrue? Enlighten me?

People want to be free ...except the ones we put there to be loyal obviously who are still doing their job 350 years later and being loyal to the crwon.

So after 350 years we say to people "Off you toddle back to England, thanks for the hard graft". Does this apply to all immigrants of the UK that can't prove their family history in the British Isles for, say, 1000 years?

It's a bullshit statement as you know. Yes they were put there and yes the historical responsibility can't be argued but you can't really rewind things as you know.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

There's always someone that rolls out this trite untrue bollocks.

There always is, and trite, yes, easy also, but I'd be interested to hear how it is untrue? Strikes me as very true.

Edit; great minds, Zimbo...

The IRA were fighting for what they believed to be their freedom from an occupying foreign power.

The IRA were terrorists from the viewpoint of the British government and people who were victims of their actions.

great minds, Zimbo...

I always thought you were a genius, v8!

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

In fact, Konabunny, give me just one example where this isn't true...

There's a degree of mandate behind the statement too. Little doubt that the majority in South Africa supported the removal of white minority government, whether they supported ANC actions or not.

IRA never had close to a majority of population supporting the aims, let alone the method.

The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is quite simple, and can be drawn from article 43 of protocol 1 to the Geneva convention

[i]3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.[/i]

- seems fairly clear to me. If a party such as the IRA are carrying out military action as part of a supposed 'war' in which they are involved, then they need to do so openly

if you carry out military action whilst disguising yourself as a civilian, you're a terrorist.

The IRA were terrorists from the viewpoint of the British government and people who were victims of their actions.

if you carry out military action whilst disguising yourself as a civilian, you're a terrorist.

French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

wrecker - Member

French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

Examples of them targetting purely civilians?

One of us is missing the point. Z11's quote is to what I was referring. It doesn't mention the target of the operation.

seems fairly clear to me.

Poor point tbh

In fact, Konabunny, give me just one example where this isn't true...

"Terrorist" isn't just an insult that you throw a people you dont like, as you suggest. Your truism is utter bollocks because terrorism is a tactic the practice of which can be objectively determined. Freedom fighting goes to motivation and outcome and is subjective.

(Z11's extract is not to do with terrorism but actually guerilla warfare and the rights - lack of them more accurately - due to spies).

French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

"Terrorist" isn't just an insult that you throw a people you dont like, as you suggest.

I take your point. In a purely literal sense, you're correct. I think globalti was more referring the subjective, vernacular use of "terrorist" and "freedom fighter." Which is sort of more in tune with the subject of this thread.

French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

Sure - at times.

...and to the French and Dutch resistance, we can add Blair, Bush, Guevara, Hitler, Bolivar, any perpetrator of violence anywhere, ever.

Purposely hitting civilians by blowing up shopping centres and train stations is not the work of an army

Besides, in the case of IRA bombs, plenty mistakes where made of that there is no doubt, but there is also murkying of the waters somewhat when you consider there were times when warnings weren't acted upon... plus the infiltration in the IRA means that surely there were spies that allowed things to happen for propaganda purposes. Not saying it's right, but these things do happen, rules tend to go out the window..

not been signed by everyone including the US for example

The geneva convention?

the protection of civilians when military priorties take over... collateral damage etc.

...and to the French and Dutch resistance, we can add Blair, Bush, Guevara, Hitler, Bolivar, any perpetrator of violence anywhere, ever.

My point is when civilian deaths are not collateral but the goal.

the blitz, dresden, napalming entire villages etc?

Dresden;

major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort

Blitz

The bombing did not achieve its intended goals of demoralising the British into surrender or significantly damaging their war economy.[

Napalming villages? I don't think there's a justification of that.

Apologies for the wiki stuff, but even these actions have at least a pretense of legitimacy.

Now that we seem to have got murky definitions of what a terrorist is to add to the murkiness that is Irish history, STW's probably got less chance of agreement than the NI peace process.

Maybe we should leave them to it - they're probably better at bridging divides

Again, you're just using terrorist as an insult.

No, I'm using it in accordance with the definition of terrorism as the use of violence and intimidation, especially for political ends.

Dredging up the past is what put NI in this situation in the first place. We need to look to the future and put emphasis on integrated education and moving forward things will get better slowly.

not been signed by everyone including the US for example

The geneva convention?

Is a good day, another small step forward. Lets not forget The Duke of Edinburgh shaking hands with MM too, given his personal history that isnt insignificant.

not been signed by everyone including the US for example

The geneva convention?

[i] Lets not forget The Duke of Edinburgh shaking hands with MM too, given his personal history that isnt insignificant. [/i]

Well, you know, the Greeks can't afford to offend anyone at the moment 🙂

wrecker - Member
the blitz, dresden, napalming entire villages etc?
Dresden;
major rail transportation and communication centre, housing 110 factories and 50,000 workers in support of the German war effort
Blitz
The bombing did not achieve its intended goals of demoralising the British into surrender or significantly damaging their war economy.[
Napalming villages? I don't think there's a justification of that.

Apologies for the wiki stuff, but even these actions have at least a pretense of legitimacy.

Regardless, going back to the original point re mcguiness I don't really see an issue with it, I think on the republican side it's very indictative as to why they are failing to bring about a UI under the terms of the GFA, ie it's another stick they can beat each other with...which is a shame.

Good on them.
Here's to a better future.

Besides, in the case of IRA bombs, plenty mistakes where made of that there is no doubt

They weren't mistakes - they were deliberate acts of targetting civilians.

Looking at it another way...............

(I wasn't, but just suppose.............)You were in the British Army during the troubles. You risked your life combating the enemies of your country. You were shot at, blown up, and stressed to hell and back. You saw comrades die and hundreds of innocent civilians slaughtered by this same enemy.

Now your Commander In Chief is shaking hands with one of the enemy's main leaders.

Are you going to be impressed?

Now your Commander In Chief is shaking hands with one of the enemy's main leaders.

Are you going to be impressed?

Doesn't that depend on what's being achieved by the handshake?

Now your Commander In Chief is shaking hands with one of the enemy's main leaders.

Are you going to be impressed?

Possibly not but you would hope that no more lives would be lost in the province

billyboy - Member

Looking at it another way...............

(I wasn't, but just suppose.............)You were in the British Army during the troubles. You risked your life combating the enemies of your country. You were shot at, blown up, and stressed to hell and back. You saw comrades die and hundreds of innocent civilians slaughtered by this same enemy.

Now your Commander In Chief is shaking hands with one of the enemy's main leaders.

Are you going to be impressed?

Works both ways tho - For McGuinness to do this shows a symbolic burying of the hatchet that goes beyond anything yet. It that way it can only be good. Wars only end in the end with people talking to former enemies

They weren't mistakes - they were deliberate acts of targetting civilians.

(I wasn't, but just suppose.............)You were in the British Army during the troubles. You risked your life combating the enemies of your country. You were shot at, blown up, and stressed to hell and back. You saw comrades die and hundreds of innocent civilians slaughtered by this same enemy.

You were in the [s]British[/s]Irish Republican Army during the troubles. You risked your life combating the enemies of your country. You were shot at, blown up, and stressed to hell and back. You saw comrades die and hundreds of innocent civilians slaughtered by this same enemy.

Now your Commander In Chief is shaking hands with one of the enemy's main leaders.

Are you going to be impressed?

All wars have to come to an end surely soldiers see this and dont want the same horros for their children?

Can you give an example of the British Army blowing members of the IRA up please Junkyard? Don't seem to remember that

The IRA that fought for the freedom of Ireland in the first half of the century where freedom fighters, the IRA that followed with car bombs etc on civilians are terrorists. big difference.

Technically it twas the French that invaded Ireland after they kicked our arses. 😉

I don't like how a few of the media site etc have made a big deal of how bad this is for MM, Not exactly great for Queeny considering Mountbatten and all the civilians deaths.

there is an ulster league mtb race on at the weekend , nationalists and loyalists will take part as is the case with all mtb events throughout ireland. why dont yis all **** off out and play on yer bikes instead of bitching !!