[Closed] Martin McGuinness

this is going to get messy

he should probsbly have died in prison

but without him as a politician would the war still be going on?

Will he be remembered as a Politician or as a murderous IRA Commander?

I'd say as a politician. Same as most UK politicians are remembered.

I think of him as a pragmatist, who believed passionately in his cause.

He was instrumental in the armed struggle when he saw it as the only option, but renounced violence, and fully embraced negotiation and diplomacy when that became a viable alternative.

I find it a bit odd that people who've never lived under any kind of(real or perceived) oppression, or occupation, then condemn people who have/do then taking up arms against it. Would you just shrug and accept the status quo if it was you?

but without him as a politician would the war still be going on?

We might be about to find out. I sincerely hope not. But things ain't looking great right now. There would have been no peace process without him, and who he took with him. That's for sure

He was eventually a politician who was instrumental in bringing in a durable peace.

I guess one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (not my quote btw). I was in the Forces in the late 80's and saw the issues PIRA caused. In my view he is up there with Gadaffi and Saddam.

Would you just shrug and accept the status quo if it was you?

No I would binge eat Steak Bakes.

Will he be remembered as a Politician or as a murderous IRA Commander?

Both, but it is far better for the people of Northern Ireland that he adopted the road to peace.

Will he be remembered as a Politician or as a murderous IRA Commander?

He was both. I think we're all capable of managing two thoughts at the same time...

but renounced violence, and fully embraced negotiation

Well said. I know there are many ex and serving members of the forces who can perhaps never forget or forgive what the IRA have done. But the fact remains that we don't have an armed conflict in the UK any longer in large part thanks to him

The place still has massive problems, organised crime etc. The troubles have not really gone away.
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2017/02/27/news/-ira-says-it-planted-bomb-under-psni-s-officer-s-car-in-derry-945355/
Peace?? Really...The fact that soldiers no longer police the streets is really the only difference.

I think he did genuinely try to move away from terrorism in recent years. I think most people (myself included) don't believe his claim that he had nothing to do with the IRA from the mid 70's onwards and taking that into account he had very little credibility.

I'm not celebrating his death but I'm not mourning him at all.

I do wonder if people generally would be so forgiving if he'd been a Muslim terrorist for 30 years and not a Catholic one.

I do wonder if people generally would be so forgiving if he'd been a Muslim terrorist for 30 years and not a Catholic one.

I'm not celebrating his death but I'm not mourning him at all.

[I]We revere Mandela will McGuiness ever be seen in the same light?[/I]

Well, something to bear in mind is that, on this side of the Irish Sea, there is generally very poor understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland that led to the Troubles. Northern Ireland was, in effect, an apartheid state, with the Catholics as the Blacks and the Protestants/Unionists as the Whites.

I do wonder if people generally would be so forgiving if he'd been a Muslim terrorist for 30 years and not a Catholic one.

If they renounced violence, and were then instrumental in stopping a bloody conflict, and bringing (relative) peace then what would the difference be?

I served in NI and am a catholic, nothing but contempt for the man.
The end does not justify the means.

I shall not mourn for him and he has to answer to a greater authority now.

Will he be remembered as a Politician or as a murderous IRA Commander?

Or even as a tout?

I have to give him credit for changing his ways, and being instrumental in the success of the peace process, the common ground, and indeed friendship, he seems to have found in his work with Ian Paisley is nothing short of remarkable.

Despite this I don't think a thousand lifetimes in hell will make up for the misery he caused in the past.

I shall not mourn for him and he has to answer to a greater authority now.

Cougar!!!!???

[i]what would the difference be? [/i]

I don't know but no mass shooting by a white Christian in the US is ever described as a terror one with religious or racial motivation so the race and religion of the perpetrator clearly has an effect on how people see the event and individual involved.

I believe the correct term for that is racism.

the Americans might be squimish about what they call their digging impliments, but not here.

The killings on mainland Britain by the IRA were most definitely described as terrorism. Because thats what it was. Unless you heard any other terms at the time? I didn't. Not really religiously motivated though. While the IRA were nominally catholic, that's not what it was about at all.

I think we can count ourselves lucky he was in the position he was when the chance of peace came. Others might not have been so open.

Least it gives us the chance to show this again.

We revere Mandela will McGuiness ever be seen in the same light?

Heard the journalist on the Today programme (Radio 4) this morning hesitantly comparing him to Mandela.

My immediate thought was "Oooh they'll be getting some angry letters"

While the IRA were nominally catholic, that's not what it was about at all.

true but religion was used as a tool by the terrorists

He was both. I think we're all capable of managing two thoughts at the same time...

Chewkw to the forum...

The difference between him and Mandela is that whilst he assisted in bringing about peace he never fully engaged in the same acknowledgement and reconciliation process. He empowered himself but didn't fully act to heal the country. And yes there are faults on all sides because it was a messy, unpleasant and long lasting period.

He died taking knowledge that may provide comfort to the families of his victims which has been and is still being withheld. For that alone I'll not miss him too much, much the same as Ian Paisley.

Well said. I know there are many ex and serving members of the forces who can perhaps never forget or forgive what the IRA have done. But the fact remains that we don't have an armed conflict in the UK any longer in large part thanks to him

RSA did however have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission no chance of that here as there's much to much dirty laundry on all sides, including the British state

[I]I think of him as a pragmatist, who believed passionately in his cause.

He was instrumental in the armed struggle when he saw it as the only option, but renounced violence, and fully embraced negotiation and diplomacy when that became a viable alternative.
[/I]

+1

Black-and-white people struggle with this sort of thing I think. Terrorist [i]or[/i] politician, as if you can't be both- and just as well you can. No different now he's dead.

mrhoppy - Member

The difference between him and Mandela is that whilst he assisted in bringing about peace he never fully engaged in the same acknowledgement and reconciliation process.

TBH that can only be a two-way process, we'll never know how he and others (on all sides) might have responded if there'd been the opportunity to have a SA-like truth and reconciliation process.

Good guy, in my book.

mrhoppy - Member
The difference between him and Mandela is that whilst he assisted in bringing about peace he never fully engaged in the same acknowledgement and reconciliation process.

I am always delighted to share a platform with people like Martin, I make no secret about it - we get along very well personally. It's sometimes strange for people who don't know Martin, who say to me how can that be, given our different pasts? If you take people as you find them, Martin has always been extremely courteous to me and Wendy.

– Colin Parry

Worth remembering that in the complex situation that was present - very few had clean hands. Certainly not the government of which Tebbit was a key member.

It's easy to scrutinise McGuiness and his peers on both the republican and loyalist sides - if we do so we better be ready to subject our own leadership to the same tests and be prepared to find out how much they also did which is immoral.

Also Mandela had the eyes of the world on him (and those of plenty of Western leaders who had not so much supported apartheid, but were happy to trade with SA) and knew that if he lost control of the situation that there may have been a genocidal bloodbath on the cards once the tables were turned. That he achieved a relatively peaceful transition of power was probably the best thing he managed.

The situation differed greatly in Northern Ireland, and while there was reluctance on the part of Unionism to hand over control to Nationalists and allow RoI to have a say in cross border matters, the unionist chunk of the population wasn't fearing a bloodbath.

Powell's book on the negotiations that led to the GFI is worth a read, particularly for those with more sympathy for Nationalism than Unionism, as it gives a good insight into unionist mindset. I came away from reading it with a bit more sympathy for their position than I had previously. Bear in mind that they brought two sides into a power sharing agreement when previously some of them wouldn't even sit in the same room as the other "side" to begin with.

McGuinness and Paisley came a long long way together and without their changes and those of Trimble also, we wouldn't have the relative peace that exists today.

Brexit and the unionist's mis-management of the renewable energy scandal have both thrown spanners in the works but I have hope that as the reigns of power are passed on to a generation not involved in the troubles, they'll manage the peace ok.

I'm with Norman Tebitt on this one.

As I have posted before IMO 9-11 was fhe key event in ending the Northern Ireland Troubles. It changed the US's attitude to the IRA's fund raising in the US and towards the troubles in general. Any credit to McGuiness or Adams is overstated.

Mandella lead Soith Africa out of a potentially explosive period with broad support from the White minority as well as the Black population. His involvement in the terrorism of the ANC was nothing like that of McGuiness and the IRA

I'm with Norman Tebitt on this one.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. As I've stated before, you've previously displayed remarkable levels of ignorance about and bigotry towards the whole island, let alone something as complicated as the troubles - the nuance of with which you must struggle greatly.

He was instrumental in the armed struggle when he saw it as the only option, but renounced violence, and fully embraced negotiation and diplomacy when that became a viable alternative.

Rather more complicated than that though, wasn't it. For decades - arguably for all of his 'political' career - he had a foot in both camps. He reveled in the the ambiguity Sinn Fein's status and links to the IRA, Real IRA, Diet IRA, IRA Zero and IRA Light afforded him, and the undertones of threats to the piece process that the ambiguity gave him.

I'm with Norman Tebitt on this one.

If you ever wanted to make sure nobody reads another word of whatever drivel you're about to spew out, then that's probably the best statement to start with. You clearly share the same level of willful ignorance and blind prejudice

jambalaya - Member
As I have posted before IMO 9-11 was fhe key event in ending the Northern Ireland Troubles. It changed the US's attitude to the IRA's fund raising in the US and towards the troubles in general. Any credit to McGuiness or Adams is overstated.

#Jambafact 😕

I do wonder if people generally would be so forgiving if he'd been a Muslim terrorist for 30 years and not a Catholic one.

In the 70s and 80s being an Irish Republican was to be far more of a bogey man than a "muslim terrorist" which would have been a very unfamiliar term to most people.

Much (though not all) of what the IRA was up to was not against civilians and therefore not terrorism. The republicans liked to see it as "armed struggle" i.e. one military force against an occupying military force, and much of their effort was directed to establish this status. The reality was probably much murkier.

There are many cases of "freedom fighters" becoming "terrorists": a group that is giving the Russkies a bloody nose in Afganistan in one decade becomes the bogey men fighting dirty against our boys in the next.

As usual it is the locals that suffer most in these situations and I wouldn't have liked to have attracted the ire of McGuinness and co. if I'd lived on a Catholic housing estate in NI during his reign.

Rather more complicated than that though, wasn't it.

Yes... funny isn't it how long protracted conflicts, that go on for decades, involving multiple factions, ever shifting alliances, then cagey negotiations trying to tentively rebuild trust can get a bit complicated, isn't it? Who'd have thunk it, eh?

Perhaps, you and Jammers should stick with your Tebbit-esque 'Good Guys' and 'Baddies' routine. Like a Western? You seem to struggle with anything more mentally taxing or nuanced

Given that John Major made the downing Street declaration in '94, and tacitly acknowledged contact had started long before that, how does that square with your assertion that 9/11 was responsible for encouraging talks?

Or does it just fit with your view, and thusly become another jambafact?

No tears or sympathy from me.

His conversion to the peace process does not outweigh his long standing IRA involvement.

I would argue that he was one of the proponents of 'asymmetric war' and during the troubles he regarded everyone and everything as fair game.

How much about him and Adams is hidden away in Government files covered by the 30 year rule - which will, no doubt, be extended for generations.

Good guy, in my book.

Bad guy, in mine. But a bad guy who did bad things for what he passionately believed in, and when circumstances changed changed with them to eventually do very good things.

His slate is not clean, but that's not so different to many from that period on both sides. But in the round I think both sides owe him (and Trimble, and Paisley, and Major, and Mowlam, and even Blair a bit) a debt of gratitude.

As I have posted before IMO 9-11 was fhe key event in ending the Northern Ireland Troubles

Jamba has this right. Once this happened and the money couldn't flow around they had to get around the table.

Editing to add it was not so much get around the table but the option to leave and return to arms wasn't properly viable any more. There are many issues involved but the various flows of money and the associated power kept things going.

Binners, Tebbit has more right to his opinion on this subject than most on here.

How you can say this about Tebbit and someone who agrees with him;

If you ever wanted to make sure nobody reads another word of whatever drivel you're about to spew out, then that's probably the best statement to start with. You clearly share the same level of willful ignorance and blind prejudice

In a thread where most people are talking about being forgiving towards [i]Martin McGuinness[/i] is making my brain ache a bit.

Andy_B - Member
As I have posted before IMO 9-11 was fhe key event in ending the Northern Ireland Troubles
Jamba has this right.

Aye, I too think 9-11 had a profound affect the decommissioning talks. 😕

Timeline[edit]
10 April 1998 (Good Friday): Belfast Agreement is signed, which agrees to have all paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland decommission by May 2000.
May 2000: Deadline to disarm passes. Independent International Commission on Decommissioning agrees on a new deadline, 30 June 2001.
30 June 2001: Deadline to disarm passes.
July 2001: Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble resigns as First Minister because the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) refuses to disarm.
7 August 2001: The IRA agrees on a method to decommission.

the war was over by the time 9-11 happened.

I can understand Tebbit, man lost his wife to the 'ra.

Doesn't make him correct of course.

EDIT no she didn't die 😳

Glad I didn't start this thread, thought about I but got the jitters.

I'm torn, split right down the middle on this one. I'm a man of peace and tranquility so any kind of aggression and reactionary aggression on either side makes me retreat into a role of self preservation.

I think we all know how the IRA started, and why so no need to dredge that back up. But it wasn't just the blowing up and killing stuff I get itchy about. It's the beatings and violence and knee capping they did, of which He was involved and gave many the order to inflict.
There are a great many families that still tread in fear today, but without Him walking up to the table of negotiation the overt violence would still be in place, as is we've had peace for a number of years now, in the main because He understood the importance of talking and negotiation. But the beatings continue, the organised crime continues and He knew about it, whether directly or indirectly.

So, I'm on the fence.

Erm she didn't die cynic-al!

Obviously as a big hitter you'd need to post on a thread like this though without knowing anything at all about what you're commenting on.

bikebouy - Member
I think we all know how the IRA started,

i'd doubt that claim.

Given that the IRA attempted, and very nearly succeeded, in murdering Norman Tebbit I can understand his antipathy towards McGuinness and others associated with the IRA.

Ultimately however, if we aren't to remain in the past then we must bring it upon ourselves to forgive the past.

Talks about talks had been going on for a long time in NI before 9/11, but there is an element of truth in the idea that the changing attitude of the American diaspora had an effect.

For example; the first WTC bombing happened in 1993, and changed many Americans attitudes to bombs going off now that they were seen as a local possibility.

The average knowledge of the average American about the troubles can probably be summed up by the fact that I know some UDR (Ulster Defence Regiment) guys who drank copiously for free in some Irish American bars after telling people who they worked for, and not correcting the people that thought they were some sort of republican splinter group 🙂

I was there in Warrington and family were in Manchester when they did the Arndale. Suffice to say I didn't celebrate St. Patricks day.

It's interesting to hear just how very close Mc Guiness was to spending the rest of his life behind bars before his U-Turn to join the peace process.

How you can say this about Tebbit and someone who agrees with him;

Tebbit relies on his knee-jerk, prejudicial gut-instinct at the best of times. He doesn't do nuance either. So if I was looking for an objective view on anything, he'd be my very last port of call.

But for an objective view on a senior member of an organisation that tried to kill him....?

Tom B
Info on Tebbits wife, from wikipedia;

Margaret Elizabeth Tebbit, Baroness Tebbit, née Daines, is a former nurse who was severely and permanently paralysed by the IRA's 12 October 1984 bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton

Congratulations on your humanity.

binners,
My point isn't that Tebbit is a nice bloke, just that your invective about Tebbit could be considered a bit extreme in a thread where people are largely being nice about Martin McGuinness.

bikebouy - Member

...

I think we all know how the IRA started

I would lay a significant bet that 99.9% of people don't. I bet you don't.

In giving Martin McGuiness a lot of credit one is also in danger of airbrushing the very significant peaceful efforts made by John Hume.

I'm not being nice about Martin McGuinness, or nasty about Norman Tebbit.

I'm saying McGuinness's position is complicated, nuanced, and changed completely over time. He was a pragmatist, and his actions have to be viewed in that context. And I'm saying that Tebbits opinion is about as far removed from objective as its possible to get. Which I also understand.

I doubt I'd be prepared to consider the more positive aspects of someone's charterer, who had tried to kill me.

And, just to show some of the empathy with all sides that's needed in these situations, I think Tebbit's hard-line stance can be understood, given the IRA tried to take his life and in doing so condemned his wife to a life in a wheelchair.

Fill your afternoon up, for those unable to find Wikipedia...

[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army ]IRA history.[/url]

seosamh

I did edit, probably while you were writing, to say that it was 9/11 that closed the door rather than paved the way. I certainly didn't have the feeling until 9/11 happened that IRA decom was worth their declarations until after the cash was stopped. Also, if it hadn't happened there would likely have been more incidents from 2001 to present day. Remember that Omagh was in August 1998 (after Good Friday) and it seemed clear to me that there was no consensus for arms decommissioning on either side but the results of 9/11 ensured that what was said actually happened.

If 9/11 had an affect it was in speeding up decommissioning, and that's about it. The appetite for war was long gone(the population on all sides was sick of it), and politics was the only way forward from the mid90s onwards, despite some set backs.

The republican movement had been on a course to politics from a long time, ever since the 80s it was well understood that the aims couldn't be achieve by gun alone(the obvious conclusion to that is a completely political solution.)

And, just to show some of the empathy with all sides that's needed in these situations, I think Tebbit's hard-line stance can be understood, given the IRA tried to take his life and in doing so condemned his wife to a life in a wheelchair.

That cuts both ways. The British government, of which Tebbit was a part, spent a great deal of time denying Catholics jobs, imprisoning people without trial, and murdering unarmed protestors.

Calls for remembrance of McGuiness' past activities are reasonable enough, but seem to be highly selective.

Wasn't PIRA a splinter of the original IRA at some point who wished to continue with arms? Genuine question. That's what i believed and I could see a possibility of history repeating. I agree that the majority were looking to a political solution but a motivated and financed minority could disrupt it.

If 9/11 had and affect it was in speeding up decommissioning, and that's about it.

binners,
I fully agree with that.

For me though, however nuanced and however much things changed in the end, I can't help considering how people would feel if they Mr McGuinness shooting some crying kid through the back of the knees.

(There was a sliding scale of kneecapping by the way. Shooting back to front was considered the worst as it removed the kneecap permanently.)

The best thing you can say about him was that he stopped in the end.

The best thing you can say about him was that he stopped in the end.

He did more than stop. He pretty much did a 180. He just didn't come clean about his past.

I do not like him one bit but what he did was quite remarkable imo.

Andy_B - Member
Wasn't PIRA a splinter of the original IRA at some point who wished to continue with arms? Genuine question. That's what i believed and I could see a possibility of history repeating. I agree that the majority were looking to a political solution but a motivated and financed minority could disrupt it.

Aye the PIRA took over from the less proactive older "Offical" IRA in 69/70.

What do you mean history repeating itself? these days?

eat_the_pudding

t.

For me though, however nuanced and however much things changed in the end, I can't help considering how people would feel if they Mr McGuinness shooting some crying kid through the back of the knees.

You should probably temper your views on McGuinnes with the realisation that he was a product of of British interference, exploitation and genocidal murder of millions of people in Ireland for nearly 1000 years.

bikebouy - Member

I'm torn, split right down the middle on this one

Seems completely appropriate tbh.

The best thing you can say about him was that he stopped in the end

I'm no fan of him either. He has plenty of blood on his hands. But the way I look at it is that not only did he renounce violence himself, and embrace diplomacy and compromise, but along with Adams, he managed to convince a terrorist organisation as formidable as the IRA to disarm and do the same.

Would you fancy taking on that task? I can't imagine how daunting a prospect that was! Or the work, not to mention risk to your life, that involved!

Whatever you think of him - nobody is saying you have to like him - you surely have to admire, or at least acknowledge the commitment from him, and personal sacrifice, that has allowed a lasting peace to emerge after decades of bloody conflict? No?

I'd like to hope that his commitment to that was to atone for his previous violent actions. But I guess we'll never know.

Peace?? Really...The fact that soldiers no longer police the streets is really the only difference.

It's moved on a whole lot since you last patrolled in a Landrover.

It's rather pleasant not to have to check under the borrowed car (from a family member) when we stop in Coleraine. I no longer have to avoid Swatragh or Dungiven. My loyalist nephew works in Toomebridge and has done for a few years now.

It's whole new place and the longer it goes like this the harder any return will be.

What do you mean history repeating itself? these days?

From 98-01, I didn't see that anybody had full control of the arms that still existed. I saw a possibility of another splintering of the IRA like the PIRA before. I think 9/11 + decommissioning + the beginnings of politics + the passage of time has made that quite unlikely today. I hope it has. I think it needs another generation minimum - one that hasn't had their families murdered by the other side. At least the politics discussed at Stormont is more about economics, health, education and prosperity than it used to be. it's not something I thought I'd see in the timescale that it has happened in and I absolutely believe that's for financial reasons as much as the other reasons.

Cheers for the Wikipedia link eat the pudding....as I said then, his wife didn't die, not blaming Tebitt for having McGuiness....I would too. I was merely correct cynic-al (whom has now edited his post)

Congratulations on your own humanity too Chap....and on your useful contribution to the thread.

Andy_B - Member
What do you mean history repeating itself? these days?
From 98-01, I didn't see that anybody had full control of the arms that still existed. I saw a possibility of another splintering of the IRA like the PIRA before. I think 9/11 + decommissioning + the beginnings of politics + the passage of time has made that quite unlikely today. I hope it has. I think it needs another generation minimum - one that hasn't had their families murdered by the other side. At least the politics discussed at Stormont is more about economics, health, education and prosperity than it used to be. it's not something I thought I'd see in the timescale that it has happened in and I absolutely believe that's for financial reasons as much as the other reasons.

I think it would have took an awful lot to go back tbh, I think there was an aire of inevitability about it looking back, but still..

I think we can all agree the situation today is better that it was an that's a good thing and testament to all involved, from all sides.

i still think a proper truth and reconcillation should have happened, along with immunity from further prosecution for all(a line should have been drawn, imo.)

TomB
Sorry if I got you wrong, but it seemed that just saying "she didn't die" to correct someone was a bit harsh in view of the life changing injuries she suffered.