[Closed] Martin McGuinness

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 !!

Hedgehopper - Member

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

Gibralter? Bloody Sunday? Shot in cold blood. There were mistakes on both sides. There are many, many instances of this type of conflict thoughout the world and throughout time. It either ends in brutal represssion and overwhelming force (Sri Lanka) or the much better solution of a negotiated settlement, with concessions given on both sides. After that it takes time to heal the hurt, and to forgive and move on.

I wish both sides all the best and hope it never goes back to the way it was.

Agree with your points wallace1492, it was the blown up comment I had picked up on. Then again Junkyard also took the time to explain that the surface to air missiles handed in for decommissioning were unused. I'd like to see how you could hand a used one in...

Martin & Gerry are pragmatists. Ulster isn't what they are interested in any more. They are looking south. They saw that the Queen was warmly welcomed here. Southern Irish men who have been killed in Afghanistan have been buried with full British military honours in the South which would have been unheard of a decade ago. Whatever about the hardline republican minority most Irish people are way way past this nonsense and that hasn't been lost on the Sinn Fein leadership.

In any case Martin is Deputy First Minister in the North - whether he likes it or not he IS administering British rule in Northern Ireland. The Queen IS his head of state. He needs to shut up and get on with representing all the people of the north.

it was the blown up comment I had picked up on because even i know that the british soldiers did indeed kill innocent people.

Then again Junkyard also took the time to explain that the surface to air missiles handed in for decommissioning were unused. I'd like to see how you could hand a used one in...

A head of state will generally allow anyone to pay homage, whereas McGuinness greeting the British Monarch must be difficult for Republicans and could even feel like defeat to some of them 😀

Just saw this on TV.

I was waiting for Prince Philip to do an impression of Inigo Montoya.

Thanks Junkyard but you don't need to fix any of my comments. There is no good in killing anyone and atrocities were committed by both sides. My simple point was trying to stop slipping inaccuracies into arguments as I don't believe it helps.