[Closed] Martin McGuinness

[I]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. [/I]

There is that, yeah.

No there isn't, 1000 years ago the ruling classes murdered and exploited the poor regardless of their nationality. Recent history's slightly different. But anyone anywhere could use medieval oppression as a justification for vigilante violence but they don't, cos it's wrong.

Re McGuiness, id guess he's typical of that generation on both sides. It'd have been better if he'd offered up what he knew about murder victims before he died but he'd have probably implicated more of Sinn Feins assembly/local government if he had to the detriment of the peace process so I see why he didn't even if I disagree

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

This sums it up for me. His work as Education Secretary has laid much of the foundation for the profound and lasting changes.

Two things I learned today, the British military considered him just the sort of material they'd want for top command, and that he was an England cricket fan.

Anyone prepared to speculate on how well a negotiated peace settlement, based on pragmatism and compromise, would have progressed with Norman Tebbit as one of the main protagonists?

No there isn't, 1000 years ago the ruling classes murdered and exploited the poor regardless of their nationality. Recent history's slightly different. But anyone anywhere could use medieval oppression as a justification for vigilante violence but they don't, cos it's wrong.

Fair enough, I was being slightly glib.

He was, however, a product of 60 years of the partition of Ireland, and the pretty appalling civil rights situation in the North. As I've said before, it was basically apartheid.

Anyone prepared to speculate on how well a negotiated peace settlement, based on pragmatism and compromise, would have progressed with Norman Tebbit as one of the main protagonists?

Well it is unlikely to have happened, which shows how courageous John Major was in starting the process.

Always going to bring out diametrically opposed views.
Interesting word terrorist, as my ancestors thought the black & tans were when shooting my grand uncles in their beds. They were 6 year old twins.

the pretty appalling civil rights situation in the North. As I've said before, it was basically apartheid.

Gets messy blaming that on the British government though, as a devolved government (prior to '72) it might be better to regard it as a uniquely Irish set of bastards from one community behind the poor treatment of the other community (and not giving much of a toss about many of their own either)

My dad worked with him when he was the Minister for Education and had nothing but good things to say about the job he was doing. I also think that as Deputy First Minister he did try and do his best for the population as a whole, despite his past....and his political views. I personally don't think there should be any parallels to Mandela and was shocked to think anyone would even entertain that notion. Let's not get carried away with ourselves.

To the comment that nothing has changed. Are you basing this on first hand experience or just making a sweeping generalization? As someone who lives in Northern Ireland and works in Belfast I think you are talking balls. Yes there are still issues, but let's face it.....we are not alone in having obstacles that we need to overcome.

thestabiliser

No there isn't, 1000 years ago the ruling classes murdered and exploited the poor regardless of their nationality. Recent history's slightly different. But anyone anywhere could use medieval oppression as a justification for vigilante violence but they don't, cos it's wrong.

You misunderstand or don't care to understand what I said. I didn't say tht McGuinness' actions were justified by events 1000 years ago. What I said was that he was a product of 1000 years of exploitation and genocide. If you study Irish history you'll see that as far back as there was involvement between Britain and Ireland there has been suffering in Ireland and almost every generation, certainly every other generation suffered a genocidal slaughter at British hands.

ninfan

Gets messy blaming that on the British government though, as a devolved government (prior to '72) it might be better to regard it as a uniquely Irish set of bastards from one community behind the poor treatment of the other community (and not giving much of a toss about many of their own either)

So Ulster Unionists loyal to Britain are "Irish bastards"?

[I]Gets messy blaming that on the British government though, as a devolved government (prior to '72) it might be better to regard it as a uniquely Irish set of bastards from one community behind the poor treatment of the other community (and not giving much of a toss about many of their own either) [/I]

Agreed, but the British government were happy to wash their hands of it; don't forget that the situation in NI could not even be discussed in the UK Parliament.

Like you say though, the whole history is best described as 'messy'. That's why efforts on all sides (by not only McGuinness, but Hume, Trimble, Major, Blair and many, many others) to put the past behind them and try and find a peaceful way forward, many of whom put their lives on the line for even trying, should be appreciated.

Norman Tebbit: I think it's easier for the blowupers to forgive and forget than the blowupees.

ninfan - Member
the pretty appalling civil rights situation in the North. As I've said before, it was basically apartheid.
Gets messy blaming that on the British government though, as a devolved government (prior to '72) it might be better to regard it as a uniquely Irish set of bastards from one community behind the poor treatment of the other community (and not giving much of a toss about many of their own either)

Well that's if you ignore it was the British that set up the partitioned state an allowed them a free hand to turn it into and orange cesspit.

But aye in general fair point. British ignorance is a very poor excuse though.

I think we ever want to have a continued peace in NI and the rest of the UK, we have to let bygones be bygones, however horrible they were.

Releasing Murderers from prison and not perusing others was an unpalatable consequence of the peace process. As was having a former Terrorist as an MP.

My personal opinion is that 9/11 put pay to the IRA, once the Americans lost their misty eyed view of Terrorism being Freedom Fighting and stopped sending them money and arms their ability to wage war was greatly limited, but that's not to say he wasn't part of the peace protest.

A lot of prominent people have said some surprisingly nice things about him today, was that because they genuinely thought he was a decent, good man, or because we don't want to go back to the troubles.

P-Jay - Member
My personal opinion is that 9/11 put pay to the IRA, once the Americans lost their misty eyed view of Terrorism being Freedom Fighting and stopped sending them money and arms their ability to wage war was greatly limited, but that's not to say he wasn't part of the peace protest.

I'd really love to see the PIRA's books! 😆 i'd be willing to bet they collected more in dues from london, liverpool, glasgow than they did from america! (pure speculation though, on my part.)

I'd like to see the extent of dealings with North Africa and the Middle East.

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.

That's different. It was the government and their official armed services and other organisations. Completely different...

From what I have gathered in visiting NI and talking to people is that the Troubles could of been stopped anytime Westminster wanted to. When I was growing up you would here news reports about Derry, the Bogside etc and I thought they must be huge places, tiny places, a matter of a few streets in some cases.

As my mate Martin says, everyone knew who the bad guys were, the "Hoods" who beat him up when he was 16 were two guys who worked in the decorating shop on the corner of the street he lived in. It was an open secret.

So Ulster Unionists loyal to Britain are "Irish bastards"?

They're one of the few communities in the UK to describe themselves as British first. 😆

No there isn't, 1000 years ago the ruling classes murdered and exploited the poor regardless of their nationality. Recent history's slightly different. But anyone anywhere could use medieval oppression as a justification for vigilante violence but they don't, cos it's wrong.

Exactly and we would still have the Empire too!

What we shouldn't let this debate detract from is the fact that across many issues involving many different groups of people, Norman Tebbit rarely wasted any opportunity to show how detached he was from any common idea of decency. He was and remains an arse.

binners - Member

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?

What are you talking about?? There was nothing subtle or nuanced about his ongoing use of fear and terror to achieve his goal. 🙄

No... sorry.... you're using your time machine again, aren't you? You like doing that, don't you? I would too, if I had one.

Glad to see you've moved on from the industrial revolution. You really needed too. Where are we this week then? I'm thinking 1987?

Actually... are you Norman Tebbit?

Maybe if you'd watched the news instead of gadding about like a randy alley cat for the past 20-odd years, you'd be well-informed enough to construct a valid argument instead of silly, childish insults. 😉

1957?

While everyone knows his early history, he not only renounced that violent past, but changed the direction of a country, by shifting the direction of travel from armed insurrection, and indesriminate killing, to a diplomatic negotiated settlement that has endured,

In the process he took one of the most feared and effective terrorist organisations along with him, and got them to disarm, and choose a non-violent route instead.

I think that is worthy of a degree of respect, or at least acknowledgement. To merely dismiss him as a terrorist, and nothing else, just makes you sound like an idiot. Whatever year you're in this week.

Oh... nearly forgot the customary passive/aggressive 😀

Re truth and reconciliation, a R4 programme recently talked about it and apparently it is extremely important in the long term.

Actually... are you Norman Tebbit?

He isn't, but I know who he is...

I think I've got an idea too

[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15171079.Gerry_Braiden__McGuinness___the_hawk_whose_triumph_was_the_restoration_of_the_mundane/ ]A more nuanced view - the restoration of the mundane[/url]

first of all i want to say thank you to the people on here that can talk with a bit of sense and reasoning. i've been catching a few comments on news sites today and i'm really surprised at some of them and can understand why for some part they make them.

But unless you were living/born/worked/visited n. ireland for any length of time throughout the troubles you would never truly understand why martin mc guinness did what he did before becoming into the political/first minister side of things. i'm not going to dig into irish history and politics here, and i do not support him.

the man stood up for a suppressed group of people who were being unlawfully killed/discriminated against, for being of a different religion. had they done what they did (the british and loyalist forces) now in luton or birmingham because there were opposed to muslims, you can imagine the shitstorm. It was an ugly , depressing time to be in n.ireland and it held the country back so much.

It is a lot better here now, and things have moved along really well,but there will always be the deep rooted hate in all sides from the small minded people and political parties.

^ excellent comment ^

rmacattack

the man stood up for a suppressed group of people who were being unlawfully killed/discriminated against, for being of a different religion.

I was born and brought up London and, in my childhood, apart from the anti Irish racism I remember how the fear engendered by the shankill butchers and the like even reached over to the Irish community here, the idea that people would kill you because you were catholic was quite hard to understand as a child.

Just remember this fear worked both ways. McGuiness and Paisley were both self serving ego maniacs that wanted to make sure they looked good.

The true change was instigated by Hume and Trimble.

NI is at a very delicate situation currently and the dissidents will take full advantage of His death.

Yes NI is more peaceful but the paramilitaries on both sides rule their communities with fear and violence.

McGuiness and Paisley were both self serving ego maniacs that wanted to make sure they looked good.

Unlike Mcguinness I don't think there's ever been any suggestion that Paisley was personally involved in or sanctioned murder however, even though he did without doubt contribute to the overall situation.

Indeed Ninfan, to be clear I wasn't suggesting that. However the hard work and real catalysts for change were Hume and Trimble.
Paisley and McGuinness hung them out to dry and jumped into government when they had no other option.

ninfan

Unlike Mcguinness I don't think there's ever been any suggestion that Paisley was personally involved in or sanctioned murder however,

If there is one individual more directly responsible for the troubles than anyone else it's Ian Paisley. Before the emergence of any kind of modern IRA, Paisley was forming loyalist paramilitary groups like the Ulster Protestant Volunteers, Ulster Defence Committee, Ulster Resistance and the modern UVF.

These groups organised armed parades through catholic areas to stir up tension, carried out bombing campaigns which they blamed on republicans and they carried out a campaign of sectarian murder years before the IRA was reformed.

And if that wasn't enough he introduced a brand of evangelical, fundamentalist Protestantism which spread the belief that Ulster Protestants were god's chosen people and that killing catholics was no different from killing a dog since neither had a soul. He was no different than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

He may never have pulled a trigger (he didn't have to since he could persuade and manipulate people to do that for him) but he had more blood on his hands than anyone else.

Jimjam

YOu are right in that paisley has his shore of the responsibility for the armed conflict but IMO its unhelpful t say he was more to blame. It takes two to have a fight and allocation of blame is unhelpful

Paisley had to move a long way to accept the peace process and his move from hard line to conciliation was one of the key events. so if you believe he had more responsibility for the armed conflict then it logically follows that he also had more responsibility for bringing about the peace

I thought he would never be able to compromise but in the end he did and without this the war would have gone on.

tjagain

Jimjam

YOu are right in that paisley has his shore of the responsibility for the armed conflict but IMO its unhelpful t say he was more to blame. It takes two to have a fight and allocation of blame is unhelpful

Er, no. Paisley was responsible. Directly responsible. His reaction to the catholic civil rights movement was to spread lies and information about the re-emergence of the IRA, going so far as to perpetrate bombings masquerading as the IRA in addition to murdering innocent catholics who they claimed were IRA members.

Helpful or not, it's the truth.

binners - Member

1957?

If you're going to persist with your childish game, how's about 1994-1996, the Mexican standoff between Sinn Fein/IRA and John Major, AKA "The IRA Ceasefire" which came to an end when Martin McGuinness "blinked first" and ordered his "military wing" to blow up South Quay railway station...

I could name a dozen other instances but it would be futile as you're incapable of informed debate. 🙄

Cool! You've made it to the 90's. I loved the 90's! They were great! Spent quite a bit of time back then in Northern Ireland. It was a bit mad

Anyway.... just another 20 years and you're up to speed with the rest of us.

Keep going.....

[img] [/img]

Point proven... Perhaps stay away from threads that involve debate or any understanding of a subject and stick to the ones where you can just throw childish insults at people, eh? There's a good little man... 😉

He may never have pulled a trigger (he didn't have to since he could persuade and manipulate people to do that for him) but he had more blood on his hands than anyone else.

I'd almost agree - but I think our governments had even more blood on their hands...