Martin McGuinness

[Mick Mac]

Otta Wrote:

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

> In short, don't be fucktard Rodders.

There are always people who will choose to insult the person, rather than address the argument.

Of course few people in England will accept similarities between the situation in NI V SA or McGuinness and Mandela the person, as has been made clear on this thread.

[rendelharris]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > In short, don't be fucktard Rodders.

>

> There are always people who will choose to insult

> the person, rather than address the argument.

>

> Of course few people in England will accept

> similarities between the situation in NI V SA or

> McGuinness and Mandela the person, as has been

> made clear on this thread.

I don't think anyone was arguing for or against that case Mick: what was being objected to was the simple-minded characterisation of Mandela as a violent man who was drawn to a violent movement in order to indulge his love of violence, and I'm sure you'd say the same about McGuinness.

[Mick Mac]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

We are fighting for a South Africa

> in which there will be peace and harmony and equal

> rights for all people. We are not racialists, as

> the white oppressors are. The African National

> Congress has a message of freedom for all who live

> in our country.

>

> I can't find any records of deaths caused by MK

> before Mandela was imprisoned, can you? And if

> there were some, Mandela and his comrades were

> fighting against apartheid

(and only turned to the

> sabotage plan after the Sharpeville massacre)

Sorry - is this post being used to differentiate Northern Ireland from SA ? or highlight the similarities?

[rendelharris]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

>

>

> We are fighting for a South Africa

> > in which there will be peace and harmony and

> equal

> > rights for all people. We are not racialists,

> as

> > the white oppressors are. The African National

> > Congress has a message of freedom for all who

> live

> > in our country.

> >

> > I can't find any records of deaths caused by MK

> > before Mandela was imprisoned, can you? And if

> > there were some, Mandela and his comrades were

> > fighting against apartheid

>

> (and only turned to the

> > sabotage plan after the Sharpeville massacre)

>

>

> Sorry - is this post being used to differentiate

> Northern Ireland from SA ? or highlight the

> similarities?

Neither - I was refuting DKHB's assertion that Mandela had called himself a terrorist. There are clear similarities between Sharpeville and Bloody Sunday in terms of being pivotal moments in the revolt against oppression, obviously.

[Otta]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > In short, don't be fucktard Rodders.

>

> There are always people who will choose to insult

> the person, rather than address the argument.

>

> Of course few people in England will accept

> similarities between the situation in NI V SA or

> McGuinness and Mandela the person, as has been

> made clear on this thread.

The argument had already been well addressed by rendel. And I make absolutely no apology for what I said, whether it was playing the man or not.

I totally accept similarities between the two situations. But please don't insult the memory of Mandella by trying to claim similarities between the men, especially during the earlier part of their lives. There is nothing to suggest that Mandela was ever a nasty violent thug that liked the power of hurting people and having them hurt. Mandela led his country to some sort of peace. McGuinness jumped on a bandwagon.

I believe that all you are trying to do with this whole thread is antagonise just to give yourself a cheap little thrill. It's quite a nice bit of trolling, but frankly beneath you (or maybe not).

[Mick Mac]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

>

> Neither - I was refuting DKHB's assertion that

> Mandela had called himself a terrorist. There are

> clear similarities between Sharpeville and Bloody

> Sunday in terms of being pivotal moments in the

> revolt against oppression, obviously.

It was a rhetorical question, but I guess you suspected that

[Mick Mac]

Otta Wrote:

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

> I believe that all you are trying to do with this

> whole thread is antagonise just to give yourself a

> cheap little thrill. It's quite a nice bit of

> trolling, but frankly beneath you (or maybe not).

I'm not going to insult you, as you have others. But you couldn't be more wrong.

This is an extremely important matter imo. As my OP said, a chance to reflect.

The lack of (formal) education on this issue within England, the inability to be objective as a result of decades of media propaganda, and the inability of many people in England to hold their hands up and accept their country's role in instigating and prolonging this problem is shocking and abhorrent.

And as regards no one on this thread agreeing with me? Well we are in England. You will find if you ask about this around the world, you will find it's you in the minority.

Bill Clinton did quote Nelson Mandela in his eulogy to MM and it wasn't a direct comparison but it was obviously intended to be noted.

If you are antagonised, it may be that you find the subject matter hard to take. Well, I'm not going to apologise for that.

No trolling.

[JoeLeg]

The air must be really fresh all the way up there on your moral high ground Mick?

From someone who claims to decry insulting other people online you've just done a pretty good job of insulting anyone who won't entirely subscribe to your dogmatic revisionist view of McGuinness. I don't see anyone on here defending or justifying British actions in N Ireland, or anywhere else for that matter.

I do see a lot of reasonable commentary on the two sides of McGuinness, and how he will be viewed by history. I'm sure there's many more books to be written on the subject; certainly I already made my view clear and I stand by it.

But to tell us that because we're English (actually I'm Scottish but I guess that doesn't fit your narrative), we automatically subscribe to some Cromwellian level of anti-Irish sentiment is pretty insulting. Seems the tit for at continues...

[rendelharris]

I must say I agree with Joe here Mick, nobody has expressed anti-Irish sentiment or denied that the UK government's behaviour in Ireland has been atrocious at times. All some people have done is refuse to agree with you that Martin McGuinness was as good or as innocent a man as you claim him to be, and any fair minded person would agree that there is at least a debate to be had on that issue. However, you have basically insisted that anyone who disagrees with you must either be a rampant loyalist or uneducated about the problems of Ireland. You started the thread saying it was a time to reflect, but apparently only the reflections of those who unquestioningly accept your point of view are welcome.

[Mick Mac]

I didn't say English, I said we are in England

I didn't accuse anyone of anti Irish comments on this thread

I didn't even say McGuinness is a good or innocent man - I don't think I said that anywhere on this thread

The point is to draw attention to how it started and was accentuated - read the OP

[JoeLeg]

Oh now you can just do one Mick, you know full well what you were insinuating.

Your OP is essentially a justification for his actions, and a declaration that the British are responsible for everything. If you want to have a wider debate on Ireland then start a separate thread, but any discussion about McGuinness in this respect is going to include the fact that he was a morally dubious individual, to say the least.

You're not worth any more of my time.

[Otta]

Making friends and influencing people there Mick.

Rendel and Joe have both kept calmer than I did, for which they deserve credit, but Joe's post a couple up is exactly how I see this thread. If you're not knowingly antagonising or trolling, then, well I don't know what to say.

No one has ever said on here that the British government (not quite the same as "the English") and some of their representatives didn't act appallingly, and no one has actually said one side was right and one was wrong.

What people have said is whatever he did later in life (and it's debatable why he took that path), McGuinness once choose a path of violence, often completely unnecesary violence for violence sake. That doesn't mean he was the worst, or that there weren't some right nasty loyalists. But we're talking about him.

[Mick Mac]

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

If you want to have a

> wider debate on Ireland then start a separate

> thread,

I'm not being intentionally obtuse - but as I said, read the OP. I was using the death of MM to set the scene for a debate on exactly that - but specific to the very recent past in Derry, immediately prior to his involvement.

[steveo]

Kill switch MIck

*Click*

[JoeLeg]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> 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 and then risked

> his reputation for peace.

>

> Perhaps it's a day to reflect upon why this man of

> Derry became what he was, the situation that

> existed at the time, and how a UK government

> abused it's own people arguably to the point of

> genocide. Why the UK government apologised for one

> of the terrible abuses and why, in peace Martin

> McGuinness was allowed, and wanted to shake hands

> with the Queen.

(Can't believe I'm actually responding again, but passive-aggressive fucktard behaviour drives me nuts, and no I don't care that I just called you a nasty name)

This is your OP.

It quite clearly frames a debate designed to show the British in the worst possible light and paint McGuinness as someone forced into his behaviour.

I do not see in your post anything other than a desire to talk about how the British screwed over N Ireland and how the Republicans were just doing what they had to do. It smacks of calculated trolling and I'm now thinking Otta's had you pegged all along.

Yes, the British have a long and terrible history, both in Ireland and around the globe. No, that doesn't justify some of the crap McGuinness and all the rest pulled. Blood on all sides, it wasn't a fight I started and I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone tell me that because I'm not Irish I'm not allowed to criticise a callous murdering bastard.

You didn't want a debate, you wanted a rant, and for everyone to agree with you.

[Mick Mac]

Otta Wrote:

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

> Making friends and influencing people there Mick.

>

> Rendel and Joe have both kept calmer than I did,

> for which they deserve credit, but Joe's post a

> couple up is exactly how I see this thread. If

> you're not knowingly antagonising or trolling,

> then, well I don't know what to say.

>

I love a good debate. Even if I know I'm going to be on the weak side of the debate. But ill maintain that in this case it's because of where we are, not the principle.

Knowingly antagonising - yes that particular post, specifically in response to yours was intended. But only because you became offensive to others - not before that.

[JoeLeg]

Mick, insults come in many forms. Not just the blunt terms that have been directed at you.

Just because you don't openly call someone a name doesn't mean up aren't using language to belittle and disparage them, their experiences and their opinions. You've demonstrated on this that you're a master of that; how clever you must feel.

I never did understand this internet insistence on 'play the ball, not the man'. Sometimes people are idiots and should be addressed as such. Apparently this means you lose the argument.

Well, Mick, carry on thinking you've won.

[Mick Mac]

I left this thread yesterday at 3pm, with a picture of a Guinness dance.

When I returned this morning I found it had got all heated in my absence.

[red devil]

I think a big part of the Northern Ireland 'problem' is that there has been too much reflection on the past. At University I knew people from both sides of divide, they could all regale events in history that 'proved' they were in the right and the other side were the baddies. Yes we can learn from history, but sometimes the past is best left in the past...

[Otta]

Wise words RD.

[Mick Mac]

red devil Wrote:

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

> I think a big part of the Northern Ireland

> 'problem' is that there has been too much

> reflection on the past. At University I knew

> people from both sides of divide, they could all

> regale events in history that 'proved' they were

> in the right and the other side were the baddies.

> Yes we can learn from history, but sometimes the

> past is best left in the past...

After 5 pages I agree, not with your final line, but that this debate should come to an end.

But I wanted and enjoyed exploring the issue in five pages. Nothing really changed, no one changed their mind, but I felt I wanted to do it and don't regret it.

[Alan Medic]

Phew. Last time I looked in I thought the thread had reached a conclusion even if the topic hadn't. Anyway, who thinks the Plantation of Ulster should be reversed?

[????]

Yup, agreed - take the Scots out of Ireland and stop blaming the English. :)

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Mandela explicitly said the MK was a terrorist

> > organisation. The MK were more careful than

> most

> > terrorist groups in selecting targets but

> > civilians were still killed. And, y'know, the

> IRA

> > and MK had joint operations, and happily

> > collaborated with other dodge merchants: the

> PLO,

> > Gadaffi's regime, Honecker, the Soviet Union...

>

> That's funny, as at his trial Mandela quoted the

> MK manifesto:

>

> Our men are armed and trained freedom fighters not

> "terrorists". We are fighting for

> democracy?majority rule?the right of the Africans

> to rule Africa. We are fighting for a South Africa

> in which there will be peace and harmony and equal

> rights for all people. We are not racialists, as

> the white oppressors are. The African National

> Congress has a message of freedom for all who live

> in our country.

>

> I can't find any records of deaths caused by MK

> before Mandela was imprisoned, can you? And if

> there were some, Mandela and his comrades were

> fighting against apartheid (and only turned to the

> sabotage plan after the Sharpeville massacre) - he

> was not, as the very stupid post (not yours) above

> claims, simply a violent man joining a violent

> movement for an excuse to be violent, as his

> actions upon his release amply proved. I actually

> find it quite extraordinary that this point even

> has to be argued.

I don't know what he said on trial but in his autobiography 30 years later Mandela describes the MK as having adopted terrorism and why he thought it was justified.

[rendelharris]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> I don't know what he said on trial but in his

> autobiography 30 years later Mandela describes the

> MK as having adopted terrorism and why he thought

> it was justified.

I'll have to take your word for that as I haven't time to re-read the whole book - however I just ran a search on Kindle for the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" and nothing like that appears. If he did say that it doesn't alter the fact that when Mandela was imprisoned MK was still following its campaign of sabotage, not terrorism, and so it is simply incorrect to label him a terrorist. The MK unquestionably became a terrorist organisation and there's no reason to suppose that Mandela would not have followed that path if he hadn't been imprisoned - he said that if sabotage didn't work they would have to consider escalating into terrorism - but at the time of his involvement it was not.