[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.