Jump to content

Recommended Posts

steveo Wrote:

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

> 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.


I'd like to know steveo when you think year 1 was with regard to the UK government trying very hard not to kill people? Nothing before this time counts it would seem. In my view everything has a cause and an effect. Something happens because of something else happening previously. This is not a tit for tat post like you started, though you quickly decided it was Mick and me (I presume) who wanted to continue it.


Let?s say for your sake the UK government has always acted like saints, no one innocent was ever killed by anyone representing them. The IRA are murderous bastards who kill innocent people. The McGuinness era, for want of a better term, is but a snapshot of a long history. To look at the snapshot and not try and understand why it's so grim is to simply choose to put yourself and anyone else who thinks like you, up on a high horse. An ignorant high horse.


I detest violence like most people. It shows a complete lack of awareness of how lucky one is to have a life. It happens through lack of clarity. But if you want to take a stance like yours in a debate like this, I suggest you read a bit of history. You may revaluate where year 1 is.

An issue I have with the IRA stuff is that they would tell anyone that would listen that they were soldiers at war. Well there are rules to war, and taking women in the night and murdering them because they'd shown compassion to a wounded British soldier... Well that's kind of outside of the rules.


Plus it's just plain nasty and unjustifiable to anyone but the most blinkered fucktards.

Otta Wrote:

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

> An issue I have with the IRA stuff is that they

> would tell anyone that would listen that they were

> soldiers at war. Well there are rules to war, and

> taking women in the night and murdering them

> because they'd shown compassion to a wounded

> British soldier... Well that's kind of outside of

> the rules.

>

> Plus it's just plain nasty and unjustifiable to

> anyone but the most blinkered fucktards.


I agree 100% - but then so is gunning down a bunch of unarmed demonstrators. The fact that both sides have managed to put this behind them offers some hope.

"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 don't buy for one second that this was intended to 'start a debate', particularly when accompanied by "...and how a UK government abused it's own people arguably to the point of genocide." The opening post represents (at best) the most one-eyed and partisan possible account of the man and his many terrible crimes, with which on the basis of the thread that follows almost every other poster (unsurprisingly) disagrees with, to a greater or lesser extent.


My own view is that McGuinness was an unrepentant murderer who saw a chance for political power at the same time as his 'army' was in serious trouble. It may be that what started as opportunism then became something more tangible but he was one of the worst that emerged from a generally terrible period of British history.

DaveR Wrote:

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


> My own view is that McGuinness was an unrepentant

> murderer who saw a chance for political power at

> the same time as his 'army' was in serious

> trouble. It may be that what started as

> opportunism then became something more tangible

> but he was one of the worst that emerged from a

> generally terrible period of British history.




Well said.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Otta, as I said above the comparable for this type

> of behaviour is loyalist terrorists. The Shankill

> Butchers were picking up random Catholics and

> carving them up in the back of black taxis.




I know that there was a lot of nasty stuff done by loyalists too. Doesn't excuse or justify anything, just means there was nasty murdering scum on both sides of the fence.

Otta Wrote:

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

> An issue I have with the IRA stuff is that they

> would tell anyone that would listen that they were

> soldiers at war. Well there are rules to war, and

> taking women in the night and murdering them

> because they'd shown compassion to a wounded

> British soldier... Well that's kind of outside of

> the rules.

>

> Plus it's just plain nasty and unjustifiable to

> anyone but the most blinkered fucktards.


Extract from 'British War crimes'


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes


'By the summer of 1918, the Military Bureau had documented 355 separate incidents of violations of the laws and customs of war by British servicemen along the Western Front'

@DaveR


If anyone is being one eyed it the posters here who judge McGuinness simply for what he did or was responsible for. Not taking into account why events led to the troubles in NI is missing the point. I'm just pleased for the people there that things have changed somewhat. As most people have said this change wouldn't have occured without McGuinness. Whatever you see his motives as being doesn't matter. Things have changed for the better and for that I am grateful.


As for the point that the UK government abused its own people, maybe it didn't as it didn't consider the minority in NI as its own people. It certainly seemed like it.

I don?t agree Quids. The Troubles brought these people/organisations to prominence. If there had been civil rights for the minority in the North it?s likely the IRA would not have resurfaced as a force. However the ruling Unionists did not appear to want to share opportunities with their Republican neighbours. When objections raised by the pacifist civil rights movement failed, trouble was inevitable. Only after years of futile killings did people finally see that it wasn?t going to achieve anything. Losses became unbearable for both sides. I?m not sure what path could have been taken to reach the current state of affairs in NI that would have been less harrowing and shorter as you allude to.

Alan Medic Wrote:

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


> If anyone is being one eyed it the posters here

> who judge McGuinness simply for what he did or was

> responsible for. Not taking into account why

> events led to the troubles in NI is missing the

> point.


When discussing McGuinees you do have to understand the context of what led to The Troubles, and you do have to acknowledge and acclaim his pivotal role in the peace process, but you also have to acknowledge and condemn his active role in a sustained campaign of terrorism and murder, a lot of it indiscriminate. He didn't have to go down that route, there were alternatives, he chose the gun and bomb over the ballot box.

The OP provided a romanticised viewpoint of McGuiness looking through a green tinted lens, and for that he was rightly called out on...

???? Wrote:

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

> The question we can't really answer though AM is

> if things would have changed faster and without as

> many deaths and lives ruined without people like

> McGuinness, the IRA, the UDA and Paisley. My

> suspicion is they would have...


If it wasn't them it would've been someone else; there were enough extremists on both sides to fill all the vacant slots for both sides of the conflict. And I doubt they would've been any more pleasant.

???? Wrote:

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

> The question we can't really answer though AM is

> if things would have changed faster and without as

> many deaths and lives ruined without people like

> McGuinness, the IRA, the UDA and Paisley. My

> suspicion is they would have...


The truth of the matter is that after Bloody Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very long time.

Its the most extreme act by any advanced western government on it's own people in the last 50 years.

The truth of the matter is that after Bloody Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very long time.

Its the most extreme act by any advanced western government on it's own people in the last 50 years.



Lest we forget: 14 men and boys

https://youtu.be/vkOpgr1ElXg

Loz Wrote:

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

> 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!


It's not an irony at all. They were both bullies and shitheads.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> The truth of the matter is that after Bloody

> Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very

> long time.

> Its the most extreme act by any advanced western

> government on it's own people in the last 50

> years.

>

>

> Lest we forget: 14 men and boys

> https://youtu.be/vkOpgr1ElXg



While - obviously - agreeing with the horrendousness of Bloody Sunday, the act itself wasn't the government; that was a total failure of command and control within the British Army. I'd agree that politicians became accomplices after the fact with the vile cover-up. But on the day there's no one to blame but the Para's, who were out for blood.


I'm acquainted with someone whose father was a battalion commander in N Ireland, and was there on Bloody Sunday (he wasn't a Para). He recalls with frightening clarity how he knew, from the start, that the Para's were out of control. He said you could smell it in he air, he knew people were going to die.

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> The truth of the matter is that after Bloody

> Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very

> long time.

> Its the most extreme act by any advanced western

> government on it's own people in the last 50

> years.

>

>

> Lest we forget: 14 men and boys

> https://youtu.be/vkOpgr1ElXg


Yet more historical selectivity. How many British soldiers had been killed in IRA attacks in the months leading up to Bloody Sunday? Shot by snipers, killed by bombs, kidnapped and executed? Bloody Sunday was a terrible tragedy for which the British Army was wholly responsible but it wasn't the trigger for IRA violence- that was already in full swing.

Yes, but Bloody Sunday was the most fantastic recruiting sergeant for the IRA. It could be argued that before that day there was a chance of cooler heads coming to the negotiating table. But afterwards there was no path that lead to talks.


It stands as a prime example of what happens when those in command lose perspective and employ entirely the wrong tools for the job; the Para's in the early 70's were incredibly violent in their outlook, and should never have been anywhere near such a conflict. I suppose from that point of view it was inevitable that such a tragedy should occur.


Bloody Sunday gave MM and others like him the free hand to pursue whatever course they chose.

Agree with the first two paragraphs Joe but the facts suggest it was less of a tipping point than now perceived (and it suits the Republican narrative to keep it that way). The IRA was carrying out armed attacks pretty much daily in the second half of 1971 and that carried on after Bloody Sunday essentially unchanged.

There's no doubt the IRA was already going full throttle, that's one of the reasons the Para's were a terrible choice for deployment. They were fed up of being attacked and unable to fight back and were a unit with shockingly low levels of restraint. Of course at the time it was thought that the locals needed that kind of treatment to whip them into line!


My point is that once you've murdered a load of civilians you've somewhat crossed the Rubicon where negotiation is concerned. The IRA were handed a PR dream, gift-wrapped and dropped into their lap. It justified their actions to date and made the local population believe that the British really were the enemy. I personally believe that Bloody Sunday was a tipping point because of its effect on the public perception of what was happening.

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > An issue I have with the IRA stuff is that they

> > would tell anyone that would listen that they

> were

> > soldiers at war. Well there are rules to war,

> and

> > taking women in the night and murdering them

> > because they'd shown compassion to a wounded

> > British soldier... Well that's kind of outside

> of

> > the rules.

> >

> > Plus it's just plain nasty and unjustifiable to

> > anyone but the most blinkered fucktards.

>

> Extract from 'British War crimes'

>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes

>

> 'By the summer of 1918, the Military Bureau had

> documented 355 separate incidents of violations of

> the laws and customs of war by British servicemen

> along the Western Front'




What's yopur point AM, because British soldiers had behaved badly that made it all okay?


No.


British soldiers still on occasion behave badly, it's still not okay. And it still doesn't ecuse or justify anything. Taking people out of their houses (in front of their kids) and executing them for trying to help someone, that is not justifiable if done by the state, it's not justifiable if done by the police, and it's certainly not justifiable if done by a jumped up bully that got off on hurting people.

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

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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