Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But surely MM, the logical extension of your argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves as legitimate soldiers against the British state, then the British state would have equal entitlement to use force in return, as they would any attacking army?


Anyway, this is all muddying the waters - McGuinness is believed to have ordered the death of many a civilian.

Interesting points on the Andrew Neil show last night, with Portillo offering the view that no Conservative govt could've finalised the peace process, as so many Tories had been personally targeted by the IRA, and Alan Davies suggesting that there was no way it would've succeeded without McGuinness and Adams at the centre, as they were basically the only ones who could sell it to the rest of the Republicans.


I'm not sure I totally buy Tebbits view that they did it out of fear of prosecution, but certainly I think they knew the game was up as far as violence went. As others on here have commented, they weren't feared like before, and MI6 was deep into them. For both sides it became, I think, a chance to end it and salvage what could be salvaged, and I still think it stands as an example of moving on from conflict, however distasteful some of the compromises may be.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But surely MM, the logical extension of your

> argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves as

> legitimate soldiers against the British state,

> then the British state would have equal

> entitlement to use force in return, as they would

> any attacking army?


Loz - the IRA aside. Do you support the killing of innocent people by the state? being the subject of my post above.

steveo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Whatever the mistakes the government and its

> agents made, and dirty tricks, including murder,

> that it is/was guilty of, murdering the innocents

> was not, I suggest, ever its plan.


Even when it was planned?

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Anyway, this is all muddying the waters -

> > McGuinness is believed to have ordered the death

> > of many a civilian.

>

> What are your sources for that comment Loz?


I'm not sure I should really have to justify the word 'believed', but...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/21/martin-mcguinness-took-ira-victims-secrets-grave-say-families/


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39337760


http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/victims-reject-mcguinness-claims-that-ira-did-not-target-civilians-1-5657196


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/martin-mcguinness-dies-enniskillen-bomb-victims-son-will-remember-sf-chief-as-terrorist-35551326.html

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But surely MM, the logical extension of your

> > argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves as

> > legitimate soldiers against the British state,

> > then the British state would have equal

> > entitlement to use force in return, as they would

> > any attacking army?

>

> Loz - the IRA aside. Do you support the killing of

> innocent people by the state? being the subject of

> my post above.


Of course not.


But I do wonder how many of those being claimed as 'innocent civilians' were actually members of the IRA? I doubt we'll ever know the answer to that one.


And how many 'legitimate targets' of the IRA were no such thing, from civilian cooks (who happened to work at an army base) right up to the retired Mountbatten (not to mention the 14- and 15-year-olds also on board).

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > But surely MM, the logical extension of your

> > > argument is that, if the IRA saw themselves

> as

> > > legitimate soldiers against the British

> state,

> > > then the British state would have equal

> > > entitlement to use force in return, as they

> would

> > > any attacking army?

> >

> > Loz - the IRA aside. Do you support the killing

> of

> > innocent people by the state? being the subject

> of

> > my post above.

>

> Of course not.

>

> But I do wonder how many of those being claimed as

> 'innocent civilians' were actually members of the

> IRA?


And, at the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, I don't think the British Prime Minister would stand up in Parliament and make a public apology for the state collusion in the killing of a specific person, if there was even a hint of that person being a member of the IRA.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> And, at the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious,

> I don't think the British Prime Minister would

> stand up in Parliament and make a public apology

> for the state collusion in the killing of a

> specific person, if there was even a hint of that

> person being a member of the IRA.


You're going to have to explain that one, MM - I don't follow the reference.

Ah, makes more sense now.


Well, you have gone from "the killing of innocent people by the state" to "collusion", rather quickly. Which rather leads to sticky ground as there was arguably a fair bit of unofficial collusion between the IRA and the RoI government as well, especially within the Gardai.


But, at least the British PM 'fessed up and apologised, following its own investigation. That is more than the allegedly once-IRA Chief of Staff McGuinness ever did.

Why do people insist upon comparing the ethics and conduct of


1) A terrorist organisation - who are "expected" to behave appallingly and damage people

with

2) A democratic government - who we expect to protect the people


If your best defence against the abuses of our UK government is to say "but the terrorists did this" we are on a sticky wicket.

Well, I have noticed that the behaviour you describe normally occurs when someone tries to justify and/or romanticise the behaviour of said terrorists, using words like, "A man who spoke out against the abuses of a minority, who took up arms when talking failed, who killed horribly for a purpose he believed to be justified by abhorrent abuses by the state, who risked his life for a fair society"

I refer you to my earlier comment Mick.


The UK government was doing what it thought best to protect its people - sometimes by nefarious means it seems - but nevertheless was probably trying very hard NOT to kill the innocent, while your 'freedom fighters' were doing the opposite.

Mick, aren't you turning the whole thing around? This thread started about Martin McGuinness. I entirely agree that British conduct in Northern Ireland has been utterly disgraceful over the years, but if you can't excuse that by saying "Ah the IRA did this" then surely it cuts both ways - especially as many in the IRA and their supporters would say the IRA are/were only "terrorists" in the eyes of the UK government, in their eyes they were a legitimate army fighting an invading force?


I respect your passion for your beliefs and to an extent I share those beliefs, but you can't say:


"If your best defence against the abuses of our UK government is to say "but the terrorists did this" we are on a sticky wicket."


without


"If your best defence against the abuses by the IRA is to say "but the UK government did this" we are on a sticky wicket."


being the obvious flipside of the coin.

I accept the points made in the above posts.


The thread changed direction in my mind when RD asked me a direct question about police/army etc - I responded to this by citing why I feel they have on several occasions let the people down. The bar must be high for any government that operates within international law.


The reason for setting up this thread was not to "honour" MM particularly, but instead to start a debate which I find many people here normally very reticent from getting involved in. My OP said, I think, this is a chance to look back.


And despite knowing that I am pushing a boulder up a hill and in a minority of 1, I like the fact that people have engaged. It's good to talk/argue.


I have already said that the Queen has come out of this whole process very well in my eyes. I also feel that David Cameron has had the awkward job of issuing two public apologies in the Commons during his time in office but he has stood up and not shirked the responsibility. These apologies are extremely rare events by any Government.


What the IRA did was absolutely horrific. Everyone knows that. But the comparison should be loyalist terrorists (Shankill Butchers etc), not UK government.


But I accept it was a dirty war.

That's a fair point Mick (that the IRA should be compared to the UDF etc).


I guess the whole thing about McGuinness is that even many people who agree that what he had on the credit side of the ledger outweighed what he had on the debit side don't think the two things cancel each other out. Still...


Let's just hope we never have to face the same choices ourselves (I certainly can't say for sure that if I'd grown up a Catholic in Belfast in the 60s and 70s I wouldn't have joined the IRA) and that there's a brighter future for all, despite a few eejits who can't let go (vide the police bomb the other day).


When I was younger I was quite passionate (well, to the extent of going on the odd march) about Irish unification, now in my dotage I feel more like (former IRA man) Brendan Behan in "Confessions of an Irish Rebel" (apologies for any inaccuracies, I know I have a copy but can't find it just now):


"We're a group of small islands in the Atlantic that Europe doesn't like and America doesn't want; you can't help thinking we'd be better off clubbing together than keeping on fighting each other."

As I said a couple of days ago, although I am critical of McGuinness' early life, he played a crucial role in the peace deal and it was extremely brave (indeed, life endangering) of him to actually come to the table.


And I love the fact that he and Ian Paisley became such good friends in the end. It was truly one of life's great ironies!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious
    • Yes, they are intelligent ❤️ Various methods of deterring the foxes (aka stopping them coming and crapping on your lawn) have been suggested in this thread. If you don't want to try them, and prefer to keep clearing up the crap and complaining about it, well that's YOUR choice 🙄
    • Weather going to be hot from today thru to weekend so I hope all dog owners walk their pooches early in the morning or in the cool of the evening. Woofers can survive the odd day without going for walkies in the heat or having to race around with their pack in the heat. Try brain games with them around the house - hid treats for them to find, given them a kong..  Mental stimulation is as good and beneficial as walkies and does tire them out.     And whilst on the subject of heat and dogs, do remember that leaving a couple of windows open while you run into a shop etc to get groceries etc …. Is not good enough / the inside of a car obviously gets very very hot… and one could be delayed in ship, thru no fault of your own - meanwhile, your woofer is suffering.  Common sense really and if you are a new owner, probably really never thought it through ie walking dogs in heat or leaving them in car in heat. The majority of people on this site are caring, supportive people only offering advice, expressing concern when they see stupidity.  
    • Weirdly (well, weird as it happened very shortly after I had posted that) I got a notice the other day (the first time in the near enough twenty years since I joined the forum) telling me I had reached my limit of "reactions". I posted a screenshot on here. However I did not actually seem be prevented  from  making any more!   What is your purpose in doing that? This is a useful, long running and well loved (by me, anyway) local forum. It provides information on matters of local interest, an opportunity to easily sell or give away  unwanted things and buy or be given things you want, information on upcoming local events and interest groups. It is also a well moderated place to discuss both local and wider issues. And it is used by a variety of different kinds of people, as would be expected - we all have different personalities, experiences and opinions, and that's part of what makes the forum such a great local asset. Since rescuing the forum when the previous admin left - it could have disappeared altogether - Joe has put and continues to put an enormous amount of work into setting it up on a different platform (?) , maintaining it, and keeping it a safe and pleasant place for everyone using it. I'm sure you and others will correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels to me that dissecting "posters and their patterns" in the way you describe - presumably then to post the results on here?  - is just going to sow seeds of discord which could stop some people posting altogether and generally change the whole nature of the forum. I think that would be very sad, and I hope that that isn't your intention? Are you going to include your own posts in this? You have joined the forum relatively recently, and seem to be self-described as a "Pain".
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...