Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 87 total)
  • Martin McGuinness
  • atlaz
    Free Member

    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.

    v8ninety
    Full Member

    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…

    Aristotle
    Free Member

    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.

    zimbo
    Free Member

    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…

    oldbloke
    Free Member

    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.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    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

    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.

    – 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.

    wrecker
    Free Member

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

    Actually the British public were often the victims. If the IRA had targetted purely combatants, then fair dues. Purposely hitting civilians by blowing up shopping centres and train stations is not the work of an army.

    zimbo
    Free Member

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

    French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

    wrecker
    Free Member

    French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

    Examples of them targetting purely civilians?

    zimbo
    Free Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    seems fairly clear to me.

    Really what does it define as a freedom fighter as that was the question.
    It’s about guerilla warfare rather thna terrorism per se and has not been signed by everyone including the US for example

    Poor point tbh

    konabunny
    Free Member

    In fact, Konabunny, give me just one example where this isn’t true…

    Nelson Mandela: terrorist and freedom fighter.
    Unabomber: terrorist but not freedom fighter.
    Burmese woman: freedom fighter but not terrorist.

    “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).

    konabunny
    Free Member

    French and Dutch resistance in WW2. Terrorists?

    Sure – at times. Plenty of civilian collaborators and civilian targets were attacked. Again – you can’t just say people weren’t terrorists because you like them.

    zimbo
    Free Member

    “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.

    zimbo
    Free Member

    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.

    seosamh77
    Free Member

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

    I’d suggets you look a bit more closely at the history of war and what actually happens in them, dispite rhetoric it’s plainly obvious that the first thing that tends to go out the window is the protection of civilians when military priorties take over… collateral damage etc. Look at Iraq, the americans blew up an entire restaurant of people with drones purely because they though saddam was there.

    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..

    wrecker
    Free Member

    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.

    Yep. Collateral damage does happen. My point is when civilian deaths are not collateral but the goal.

    konabunny
    Free Member

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

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

    seosamh77
    Free Member

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

    the blitz, dresden, napalming entire villages etc?

    wrecker
    Free 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.

    oldbloke
    Free Member

    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

    zimbo
    Free Member

    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.

    BlindMelon
    Free Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    not been signed by everyone including the US for example

    The geneva convention?
    It is an amendment [ Protocol 1 1977] to the geneva convention the US have signed the later but not the former

    mcboo
    Free Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    not been signed by everyone including the US for example

    The geneva convention?
    It is an amendment [ Protocol 1 1977] to the geneva convention the US have signed the later but not the former

    IHN
    Full Member

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

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

    seosamh77
    Free Member

    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.People can twist whatever their actions are to whichever twisted justification, point is that ultimately, dispite what you’re not supposed to do, civilians do become legitimate targets in a war for whatever reason..Terrorism is actually quite an effective war tool, used by most.

    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.

    zippykona
    Full Member

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

    ransos
    Free Member

    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.

    billyboy
    Free 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?

    zimbo
    Free Member

    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?

    BlindMelon
    Free Member

    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

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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

    seosamh77
    Free Member

    They weren’t mistakes – they were deliberate acts of targetting civilians.

    and as I say the waters get somewhat murky there. I doubt we will agree so I leave that at that…

    donsimon
    Free Member

    (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.

    I’d be wondering what had pissed them off so much in the first place. 😉
    Respect to them both for moving forward.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    You were in the BritishIrish 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?
    Same thing

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

    Hedgehopper
    Full Member

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

    Singlespeed_Shep
    Free Member

    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.

    jacksonwwirl
    Free Member

    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 !!

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 87 total)

The topic ‘Martin McGuinness’ is closed to new replies.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.

4K Aston Martin Valhalla Exclusive ...
Singletrack Video Archive: 4K Aston Martin Valhalla Exclusive Hybrid Supercar Event in Vienna