Thread: Martin McGuiness - Saint or Sinner ? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020123
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
I was born in Derry a few months before Martin but christened into the Church of Ireland (Protestant). Derry was a City in which the Catholics were ‘kept under’ and the Civil unrest was completely understandable. However Martin turned it into an armed Conflict which led to many years of Violence. He did however see the errors of his ways and the Peace Process would never have happened without his active involvement. Like St. Francis and St. Paul who in their youth were violent, I think Martin can now be regarded as more of a Saint than a Sinner. Do you agree ?
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
No I don't agree but I am willing to be convinced.

To me the key question is: Has he explicitly renounced murderous (not just any) violence and wrong, not just now when it has, arguably, completed its effect, but when he did it?

This is what St. Paul did.

However, I think your post is misconceived, as it implies that you can't be a saint whilst espousing and practising violence. SFAIK Mandela never renounced the violence he was involved with. I'm sure he regretted it, but probably believed it was the only way to get what he felt was right, and the same may be true of McGuiness.

Another difficulty is that it will be very difficult to get to know the facts of McGuiness' life. There will be so much story telling on both sides which will be hard to evaluate.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think these things are very hard to process, particularly when one is British and got a lop-sided view of what was happening.

Whether the violence was ever justified I honestly can't tell. I think the knee-capping, the targeting of civilians, the indiscriminate bombing, the drug-running and mob-style gangsterism would have put me off, but (even speaking as a pacifist), I'm not entirely sure that I wouldn't have been persuaded of the rightness of the struggle.

It takes a monumental amount of inner strength to face oppression and not pick up the tools of violence.

But all of that said, it seems to me that MM was an intelligent fellow and recognised when the wind had changed and was prepared to compromise for a longer-term win, even if the thing looked different to the way he maybe had been envisioning it for most of his life.

Sad to say, the real saint is the EU in this story. Increased flexibility across the border due to membership by both states basically meant that people with opposing national narratives could coexist in the same space.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
He was the best one could have reasonably hoped against hope for.

[ 21. March 2017, 08:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Thank you Martin, that's a nice way to put it. Personally he always represented a major struggle and challenge to me to love my enemies. Such things are always easy in abstraction but desperately messy and emotionally entangled in reality.

I remember at the time peace was being tentatively brokered a rather faithful Christian gentleman noted that the prayer book had the line 'Take not thy Holy Spirit from us.' He noted the irony that the task of being peacemakers in a warring society hadn't been taken up by the church, so God sent his Spirit straight to the source of the problem.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Both saint and sinner - in other words, human.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Saint or Sinner is not for any of us to decide: in any case, how many of us who have reached our 60s would make the same decisions and take the same actions we did in our early 20s?

I feel that in eventually working within the framework of an elected assembly he proved he was a bigger man than many of his adversaries, including many who were widely thought to be "on the side of right".
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:


I remember at the time peace was being tentatively brokered a rather faithful Christian gentleman noted that the prayer book had the line 'Take not thy Holy Spirit from us.' He noted the irony that the task of being peacemakers in a warring society hadn't been taken up by the church, so God sent his Spirit straight to the source of the problem.
I think this happens a lot. It takes a very big person to see that in himself.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
I think, on balance, taking everything into consideration, weighing up all the pros and cons... I think I'm glad the murdering, scumbag, fascist thug is dead.

I hope he died screaming agony with the images of his victims tormenting him mercilessly.

It's things like this that makes me regret my universalism because I would like to think he's being tormented by an especially creative Satan, who woke up in a really foul mood.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I think, on balance, taking everything into consideration, weighing up all the pros and cons... I think I'm glad the murdering, scumbag, fascist thug is dead.

I hope he died screaming agony with the images of his victims tormenting him mercilessly.

It's things like this that makes me regret my universalism because I would like to think he's being tormented by an especially creative Satan, who woke up in a really foul mood.
Yeah. I guess that surprised nobody.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I think, on balance, taking everything into consideration, weighing up all the pros and cons... I think I'm glad the murdering, scumbag, fascist thug is dead.

I hope he died screaming agony with the images of his victims tormenting him mercilessly.

It's things like this that makes me regret my universalism because I would like to think he's being tormented by an especially creative Satan, who woke up in a really foul mood.
I'm surprised at you deano. I really thought you were into violence as a means of getting your own way.

Looks like you're being choosy about who can use these methods.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I think, on balance, taking everything into consideration, weighing up all the pros and cons... I think I'm glad the murdering, scumbag, fascist thug is dead.

I hope he died screaming agony with the images of his victims tormenting him mercilessly.

It's things like this that makes me regret my universalism because I would like to think he's being tormented by an especially creative Satan, who woke up in a really foul mood.
Your projection does you credit, you can have the job.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I think, on balance, taking everything into consideration, weighing up all the pros and cons... I think I'm glad the murdering, scumbag, fascist thug is dead.

I hope he died screaming agony with the images of his victims tormenting him mercilessly.

It's things like this that makes me regret my universalism because I would like to think he's being tormented by an especially creative Satan, who woke up in a really foul mood.
I'm surprised at you deano. I really thought you were into violence as a means of getting your own way.

Looks like you're being choosy about who can use these methods.
Of course I am. A democratically electeded government, no problem. Unelected gangsters like the PIRA then nope.

The PIRA Army Council and senior leadership ought to have been dealt with in the early 70's by the targetted application of violence, preferably measured out in 7.62mm doses.

We would have had peace 30 years earlier, a less divided community and none of the stomach-churning disgust at watching PIRA thugs like McGuinness walk away scott free.

He ought to have been buried in Milltown years ago with the case still unsolved.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Of course I am. A democratically electeded government, no problem. Unelected gangsters like the PIRA then nope.

Right. So those brave members of the French, German and other resistance groups.... oh never mind, what's the point.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Of course I am. A democratically electeded government, no problem. Unelected gangsters like the PIRA then nope.

Right. So those brave members of the French, German and other resistance groups.... oh never mind, what's the point.
Were fighting on behalf of the Allies. That is why they are vindicated. The PIRA were trying to force their ideology on a majority in Northern Ireland who rejected it.

Besides, those resistance groups had no chance of getting what they wanted - German troops to leave their countries - using the instrumentsof democracy. The situation could have been resolved democratically. The route via the ballot .box was never closed off in Nortthern Ireland.

McGuinness And his cronies decided they didn't want to use the ballot box. They wanted to rule Northern Ireland in the way they saw fit and it wasn't until they realised they would never get their way that they changed to wanting democracy but onky if they and their mates were let off from the crimes they had committed.

Your linking the PIRA to those resistance groups does those resistance fighters who fought for the Allies a diservice and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The PIRA Army Council and senior leadership ought to have been dealt with in the early 70's by the targetted application of violence, preferably measured out in 7.62mm doses.

We would have had peace 30 years earlier, a less divided community and none of the stomach-churning disgust at watching PIRA thugs like McGuinness walk away scott free.
So a brief period of violence and brutality, maybe a little torture to move things along, after which we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. Sounds vaguely familiar, and not at all likely to result in an escalating cycle of violent reprisals and counter-reprisals. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Were fighting on behalf of the Allies. That is why they are vindicated. The PIRA were trying to force their ideology on a majority in Northern Ireland who rejected it.
Oh please get a history education. Lots of people were fighting the Nazis, not all of them were "fighting for the Allies".

A majority in Germany were supporters of the Nazis, the White Rose movement was a tiny minority trying to force their ideology onto a majority who rejected it.

Or maybe they were trying to resist tyranny with whatever they could get hold of.

quote:
Besides, those resistance groups had no chance of getting what they wanted - German troops to leave their countries - using the instrumentsof democracy. The situation could have been resolved democratically. The route via the ballot .box was never closed off in Nortthern Ireland.
Well that's at least an argument. Try sticking and expanding that one rather than your usual conflating waffle.

quote:
McGuinness And his cronies decided they didn't want to use the ballot box. They wanted to rule Northern Ireland in the way they saw fit and it wasn't until they realised they would never get their way that they changed to wanting democracy but onky if they and their mates were let off from the crimes they had committed.

Your linking the PIRA to those resistance groups does those resistance fighters who fought for the Allies a diservice and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Oh I am, I am so ashamed with myself for attempting to have a discussion regarding the merits of violent resistance with someone who has shown himself unable to comprehend or discuss his points beyond "I/we are right, they are wrong".

I repeat: I'm a pacifist. Do you understand what that means?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Of course I am. A democratically electeded government, no problem. Unelected gangsters like the PIRA then nope.

Right. So those brave members of the French, German and other resistance groups.... oh never mind, what's the point.
I raised the very same question with someone raging against Palestinians recently. To the same effect.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I think, on balance, taking everything into consideration, weighing up all the pros and cons... I think I'm glad the murdering, scumbag, fascist thug is dead.

I hope he died screaming agony with the images of his victims tormenting him mercilessly.

It's things like this that makes me regret my universalism because I would like to think he's being tormented by an especially creative Satan, who woke up in a really foul mood.
I'm surprised at you deano. I really thought you were into violence as a means of getting your own way.

Looks like you're being choosy about who can use these methods.
Of course I am. A democratically electeded government, no problem. Unelected gangsters like the PIRA then nope.

The PIRA Army Council and senior leadership ought to have been dealt with in the early 70's by the targetted application of violence, preferably measured out in 7.62mm doses.

We would have had peace 30 years earlier, a less divided community and none of the stomach-churning disgust at watching PIRA thugs like McGuinness walk away scott free.

He ought to have been buried in Milltown years ago with the case still unsolved.
Democratically elected my arse. Catholics/Republicans were second-class citizens in many parts of Northern Ireland. Remember how the "troubles" started? As civil rights protests about jobs, housing and gerrymandering. Oh, and the B specials, who were little more than updated Black 'n' Tans.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
There's a thought-provoking collection of responses at the BBC from people who lost relatives to the IRA.

They probably have more right than anyone else to speak on the matter.

None of them give him a "free pass". A few regard him as an inspiring example of change. Most are prepared to give him some credit for his later role. Not all, by any means.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
It's important for Deano to post as he did. It's a reminder of where terrorism has its roots and from where it gets it oxygen for survival. Recognizable in Deano's words is the very spirit that creates and sustains terror.

I'm with others seeing McGuinness as neither saint nor sinner. Growing up in 70's Ulster wasn't going to endear me to any brand of terrorist. And I've some innocent friends and a few relations who were at the sharp end of that business. So I can understand Norman Tebbitt's feelings, as he responds with great and understandable bitterness. It must be pure gall to listen to so many people today eulogising an ex-IRA terrorist.

But one of the shocking tenets of our own Gospel is that people can be transformed into something they didn't used to be.

There was a guy on Radio 4's morning news programme - can't remember his name, sorry - who was asked what he thought had been a turning point for the violent McGuinness. And he said it was when the British security chiefs admitted that they would never be able to defeat the IRA. McGuinness's colleagues were jubilant at this idea, but to him it meant that if the British militia felt itself incapable of bringing the Troubles to a positive conclusion, then what hope did the guerrilla forces of a tiny nation have? He wanted a particular political end to the so-called struggle; not to see an endless warfare on the streets stretching forward interminably across generations. And something about the hopelessness of achieving that by violent means seemed to get through to him.

I have no idea how repentant, if at all, he was for his part in violence. But there is no doubt that without McGuinness there would not be the relatively miraculous level of peace there currently is in Northern Ireland. From a different perspective, Ian Paisley Sr. also travelled a surprisingly unexpected journey to the same point. And once there, both men found a great deal of common ground. Something I still can't quite get over, to be honest. But it happened and McGuinness was part of it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm surprised at you deano. I really thought you were into violence as a means of getting your own way.
Yes, his own way. He doesn't give a shit about fair or balanced.
quote:

Looks like you're being choosy about who can use these methods.
Massive shocker, that is.

[ 21. March 2017, 15:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Damn, Seems I missed what board this was in. Amend that to his posts here do not indicate he gives a shit about fair or balanced.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
As a Protestant who lived with a member of the B Specials I am fully aware how the Catholics/Republicans of Derry were kept 'in their place'. I did campaign for their Civil Rights here at Birmingham University and was very upset when the Civil Rights Movement turned towards violence. Violence never solves any problems - just makes loads more. Another question though. If Martin McGuiness hadn't been the Leader of the Provos, would someone else have been instead. Does one man have the power to start conflicts, or indeed end them ? Is it not a large number of people who are involved in both ?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
McGuinness was protected by the RCC like many of his comrades.

The peace process owes a lot to the Twin Towers in the USA. When America saw the fruit of terrorism at first hand donations to the PIRA dried up. The peace process was arguably driven by financial as well as other reasons.

Saint or sinner? Well only McGuinness and God really know but there was little sign of personal repentance. Given the recent amnesty, he could have said something. I suspect - with no evidence other than the knowledge that he was a commander in the PIRA - that there is/was blood on his hands that doesn't seem matched by contrition in the heart.

As to his eternal destination, I leave that to others far better qualified to deal with it.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The route via the ballot .box was never closed off in Northern Ireland.
This is what has always sickened me about all Irish Republican violence from 1916 onwards. Although there wasn't universal suffrage in the early 20th century, no part of Ireland was disenfranchised. This is why comparisons with Mandela are flawed. He was fighting for a completely disenfranchised people. The resistance in France and other countries in WW2 couldn't vote the German occupation away. Violence may have been the only way. I don't accept violence in pursuance of political ends, but it may just be justified when the authorities take your vote away or don't allow you a vote.

The SNP in Scotland has spent 40 years building up its case, and is quite likely to succeed next time around, by democratic means. There was never any excuse for Irish republicanism choosing the path of terrorism instead. Martin McGuinness was a violent thug, personally responsible for many deaths. Neither did he ever repent, at least publicly, for his past. The only thing I would say in his favour is that perhaps only someone of his credentials and reputation within the republican movement, could have brought the violence to an end when he finally embraced peace. He was able to reach out across the divide and work constructively with the Revd Ian Paisley, to the point that the two erstwhile bitter enemies formed quite a strong personal bond.

I'm a universalist, so I don't believe he will rot in eternal torment, but perhaps like all of us, he will have to feel the pain of his actions before he can be free from them.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Also referencing BCP -- God does not desire the death of a sinner but that he turn from his wickedness and live--

MmG did turn from his wickedness, and more importantly he got others to do the same. Maybe it was for cynical reasons when it became clear that more could be achieved through the ballot box than by the bomb or bullet. However this is not for someone like me, who hasn't been directly affected, to the be judge of.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

The peace process owes a lot to the Twin Towers in the USA. When America saw the fruit of terrorism at first hand donations to the PIRA dried up. The peace process was arguably driven by financial as well as other reasons.
Well other than that the Good Friday agreement was in 1998 and the Twin Towers in 2001, you'd have a great argument. As it is, it is mostly bullshit.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Alastair Campbell has some interesting reflections on Martin McGuinness in today's Grauniad.

quote:
At various moments during the years of negotiations that followed, Sinn Féin would frequently be exasperating, and some of us would lose our patience. Tony once suggested we should be a little more sympathetic to their difficulties, pointing out that they were going about this business with a not unreasonable fear that someone might put a bullet in their heads even for talking to us.

Whenever there is a terrorist attack politicians and media will rise as one to call it “a cowardly act”. But that means we should acknowledge the flipside too: what Martin McGuinness and the Sinn Féin leadership did in negotiating for peace took courage.

 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Two things:-

First
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well other than that the Good Friday agreement was in 1998 and the Twin Towers in 2001, you'd have a great argument. As it is, it is mostly bullshit.
Apart from homing in on your chronological point, Mr Cheesy, Exclamation Mark is onto something very important there. It was only the Twin Towers which did really change both American public opinion and American government assumptions outside the Republican ghettoes on the East Coast.

When Tony Blair first started to come alongside GWB over Iraq, I initially thought he was being rather intelligent - 'Now you know what it's like. Now you can show you really support us in trying to bring peace in Ulster'. It was only as the months went on after that, that got began to dawn on me that 'this chap really believes all this stuff about WMDs and the War on Terror'.


Second there's a mystery. We will never know, how much control the Provo leadership had over some of the outrages perpetrated by its columns. I suspect those at the top have always recognised that it's in their interest that this should remain as ambiguous as possible.

This is no new thing. It's never been clear how far De Valera was personally responsible for the assassination of Michael Collins. Did he issue the command, did he nod and wink, or were they murdering on a jolly of their own? The film version implies guilt to at least the nod and a wink level.

It suits others to believe the best or the worst of the leaders who have been the public face of the Provos.

It's also a fairly amazing thing that Martin McGuinness died naturally, rather than suffered the same fate as Michael Collins. There must have been plenty of people who had both the hatred and the tools to have done that.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Having read a book about the struggle for Independence in Southern Ireland, and the bloody retribution heaped on those who sought deals with the British Government, the thought that MmG and Adams were taking a great personal risk had also crossed my mind.
Not that it would have hurt either of them to feel just a little bit of the fear that countless numbers felt over many years because of their past activities.

But maybe now is the time for thoughts of retribution to be laid to rest. NI needs to build it's future rather than rake over the bitterness of it's past.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Two things:-

First
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well other than that the Good Friday agreement was in 1998 and the Twin Towers in 2001, you'd have a great argument. As it is, it is mostly bullshit.
Apart from homing in on your chronological point, Mr Cheesy, Exclamation Mark is onto something very important there. It was only the Twin Towers which did really change both American public opinion and American government assumptions outside the Republican ghettoes on the East Coast.
Exclamation Mark claimed "The peace process owes a lot to the Twin Towers" - this is ridiculous. The peace process does owe a lot to US government involvement - Clinton promised a peace envoy while campaigning in 1992 and in 1995 named former senator George Mitchell as the US Special Envoy for Northern Ireland, who chaired both a commission on paramilitary disarmament and the all-party peace talks that led to the Belfast Peace Agreement in 1998.

But I'm reasonably sure none of this involved time travel.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I will always remember a spot on the internet of Rev. Ian Paisley speaking during a Northern Ireland Assembly meeting. The topic was about rural libraries in County Down.

Rather poetic to have to look after such day-to-day concerns after such violence.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Exclamation Mark is correct about the twin towers in one very important respect; it dried up Irish American funding and other support to the IRA almost overnight. While much of the dynamic of the shift to negotiation was well underway, the impact of this went far to convincing many in the rank and file that it was time to deal and settle.

Martin McGuinness was not the first terrorist to make their way to the peace table, nor will he be the last. Having lived in Ireland during the 1970s with its slow-motion civil war on the borders, I was quite aware of the significance of his handshake with the Queen.

As far as his current whereabouts, that is in other hands and we can only speculate.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Exclamation Mark is correct about the twin towers in one very important respect; it dried up Irish American funding and other support to the IRA almost overnight.
Evidence?
quote:

While much of the dynamic of the shift to negotiation was well underway [snip]
"Underway?" Well, yes, if you mean years of multi-party negotiation had been completed, the agreements had been made between the three governments, and referendums had already been held in NI and RoI, I suppose maybe there were some faint indications before 9/11.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Evidence: Much coverage in US papers, notably NY Times, with which Mr Google can assist the curious, combined with discussions with CSIS and FINTRAC (the foreign exchange folk in Ottawa) contacts. I can't footnote them for you, but IMHO those conversations were really pretty definitive for me.

Until the "hard men" of the Provisionals lost their fervour, it was unlikely that the accords would have lasted. I sat through several failures from the mid-1970s on to believe otherwise. Acquaintance with a few of these folk-- a chilling experience-- convinced me that they would never ever yield, and I was astonished that they did. The collapse of their sources and the inclination of McGuinness et alii to go the peace route appeared to take away their steam.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Evidence: Much coverage in US papers, notably NY Times, with which Mr Google can assist the curious [snip]
So there's so much evidence that you can't be bothered to offer up even a scrap of it?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Two things:-

First
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well other than that the Good Friday agreement was in 1998 and the Twin Towers in 2001, you'd have a great argument. As it is, it is mostly bullshit.
Apart from homing in on your chronological point, Mr Cheesy, Exclamation Mark is onto something very important there. It was only the Twin Towers which did really change both American public opinion and American government assumptions outside the Republican ghettoes on the East Coast.
Exclamation Mark claimed "The peace process owes a lot to the Twin Towers" - this is ridiculous. The peace process does owe a lot to US government involvement - Clinton promised a peace envoy while campaigning in 1992 and in 1995 named former senator George Mitchell as the US Special Envoy for Northern Ireland, who chaired both a commission on paramilitary disarmament and the all-party peace talks that led to the Belfast Peace Agreement in 1998.

But I'm reasonably sure none of this involved time travel.
Good old boys saving the world again? (laughs)

What you say is correct - there were overtures before 2001. The cynic might say that the PIRA were more likely to deal with those of a sympathetic persuasion, which makes the USA's overall stance somewhat less than black and white.

Credit where credit's due. They were part of the process in the same way that the first hand horrors of the twin towers brought home to the fundraisers what terrorism really looked like - a far cry from the populist view of oppressed freedom fighters.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Damn, Seems I missed what board this was in.
You're not the only one. Those incapable of debating this topic without resorting to ad hominem remarks are advised to take them to Hell.

/hosting
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Dave:
quote:

Exclamation Mark claimed "The peace process owes a lot to the Twin Towers" - this is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous if you understand it in terms of the Twin Towers contributing to the meetings and the document that resulted, but I'm not sure that was what he meant. I was in Belfast during that time and also at the time of the Twin Towers and there was a very tangible sense in Northern Ireland that the Twin Towers event had produced a seismic shift in the minds of people.

We may never know, but it seems that IRA high command were the ones who actually signed the agreement (personally I don;t think it's an unknown at all, but I'm conscious it could spin this thread off into an endless tangent). Meanwhile the IRA tore itself apart. IRA prisoners released under the Good Friday Agreement were quick to proclaim Martin and Gerry as traitors to the cause. The IRA splintered and continued to commit atrocity, and to a lesser degree still does today.But essentially the Good Friday Agreement had to be adopted and embraced by the people, and while there were many at the time of that agreement, who accepted its ideals, there were also many (and not an insignificant number) who felt it was a sell out and who went on supporting and encouraging a terrorist campaign.

The Twin Towers is only one half of the story though and I think it marked the end of the romantic notion of terrorism in Ireland (north and south). In reality the dismantling of that mythical idea of a noble and righteous terrorism occurred after the singing of the Good Friday Agreement and entered its death throes with the unfolding horror that took place at Omagh. The Twin Towers cemented its death on the international stage. No longer could the splinters of the IRA claim to upholding the true and noble cause, because the tide had turned both locally and internationally. People who had been very vocally supportive of terrorism found themselves having to rethink their attitudes in light of speaking of terrorism elsewhere as abhorrent and cowardly. At that time, it really was a seismic shift and it was felt in a very palpable and tangible way. The peace process in those early years was incredibly fragile and brittle, but strangely those events in 9/11 gave it strength and purpose and I think it did help to end that Irish-American romanticism about a rebellious nationalism that was so often supported (perhaps unwittingly if we are to be charitable) through donations to SF and to NORAID at fancy dinners far away from the murky realities of bombs laid under cars and abandoned in supermarkets. After 9/11 giving to such organisations really didn't seem quite so lovely as it had once and perhaps - although again we may never know - that helped in some way to limit the splintered IRA in doing a permanent damage to the continuing peace process.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Thank you Fletcher Christian. You've put all that so much better than I could have done. [Overused]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I seem to remember that the Enniskillen War Memorial bombing had already produced a denunciation of the IRA from the Russians.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
McGuiness was an unrepentant murderer who never paid for his crimes in this life. I appreciate that he was an instrumental part of the peace process in NI, but he was also an instrumental part of the violence that preceded it and I don't see how that can be ignored.

Can you imagine Osama Bin Laden being let off scot free - and even celebrated - if he'd simply agreed to disband Al Quaeda and stop planning any more attacks against the West after 9/11? Or Harold Shipman being allowed to continue his medical practice in peace if he promised to go back to curing his patients rather than killing them? Of course not, because their crimes still happened and the shades of their victims still demand justice. So it is - or should have been - with McGuiness.

Ultimately, as a universalist, I hope to see him in Heaven. But I hope the person I meet there is a humble and repentant Martin McGuiness who genuinely regrets the pain he caused to so many people and has completed whatever atonement may have been deemed necessary.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
"Overtures" is a bizarre word for ExclamationMark to use though. The 1990s were the real breakthrough years when there was a huge shift in approach from all sides - both governments and all major NI parties were openly and officially negotiating with Sinn Fein, the IRA and loyalist paramilitary groupings by this stage. Obviously this can have had nothing to do with 9/11.

What made the change? I think it was that by that time those who had been young firebrands in the 1970s were older, sadder and wiser and prepared to look for a way out. Importantly, they were all still dominant figures and able to bring most of their respective constituencies with them. So, for example, there was and is no-one on the Unionist side with remotely the charisma of Paisley senior. So he was able to bring the DUP to the table without being turfed out by those more extreme than him (yes, there are lots).

Similarly with Adams and McGuiness, though surely they must have been at higher risk of a bullet in the head from their own constituency (and surely Paisley ran a small but significant chance of that too).
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Dave:
quote:

Exclamation Mark claimed "The peace process owes a lot to the Twin Towers" - this is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous if you understand it in terms of the Twin Towers contributing to the meetings and the document that resulted, but I'm not sure that was what he meant. I was in Belfast during that time and also at the time of the Twin Towers and there was a very tangible sense in Northern Ireland that the Twin Towers event had produced a seismic shift in the minds of people.
Are we adding transatlantic telepathy to time travel now? He said "When America saw the fruit of terrorism at first hand donations to the PIRA dried up" - I don't see how being in Belfast is supposed to give you any insight into American views of terrorism or NI.

You evidently have firm opinions on what Irish-Americans think and feel about NI and the IRA, and how their attitudes were affected by 9/11. That's fine, but lots of people have firm opinions that are based mostly on what everyone else in their circle thinks. Is there any particular reason why I should think your opinions are well-founded? Why are you so confident you've got your finger on the pulse of Irish-American sentiment?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm not sure "unrepentant" is entirely accurate. The IRA issued an apology in 2001 for killing civilians.

I think in the aftermath of violence, it required murderers like McGuiness and David Ervine to sit down and decide on peace.

An apology was not enough, of course it wasn't. Just like an apology for a misdirected drone that kills civilians is not enough. But they did follow through with their words and they did try to forge peace via consensus.

We can either decry that they took up arms and did disgusting things or celebrate that they stopped and changed.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Dave:
quote:

Exclamation Mark claimed "The peace process owes a lot to the Twin Towers" - this is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous if you understand it in terms of the Twin Towers contributing to the meetings and the document that resulted, but I'm not sure that was what he meant. I was in Belfast during that time and also at the time of the Twin Towers and there was a very tangible sense in Northern Ireland that the Twin Towers event had produced a seismic shift in the minds of people.
Are we adding transatlantic telepathy to time travel now? He said "When America saw the fruit of terrorism at first hand donations to the PIRA dried up" - I don't see how being in Belfast is supposed to give you any insight into American views of terrorism or NI.

You evidently have firm opinions on what Irish-Americans think and feel about NI and the IRA, and how their attitudes were affected by 9/11. That's fine, but lots of people have firm opinions that are based mostly on what everyone else in their circle thinks. Is there any particular reason why I should think your opinions are well-founded? Why are you so confident you've got your finger on the pulse of Irish-American sentiment?
This is a widespread problem with these discussions. My memory is that the early civil rights' protests were attacked by the RUC, and also the B-specials. The story goes on, that the RUC wrecked houses in nationalist areas, and therefore, that defensive measures were called for.

You might call this the standard narrative in nationalist areas. But I wasn't there, so I can't vouch for it.

I find this a real problem, as there is also a lot of mythology that goes on.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Dave:
quote:

Are we adding transatlantic telepathy to time travel now?
What precisely about this conversation lit a fire under you?
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
I remember the British Army being sent into Northern Ireland by Harold Wilson in 1969 to protect the Catholics who were being attacked by Protestants, and remember clearly a row of Catholic Houses on Fire after such an attack. It was the Catholics who were subject to an appalling system of Apartheid in Jobs, Housing and Voting Rights in those days. When the IRA started there was always a lot of tacit support for them in the Catholic Community.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure "unrepentant" is entirely accurate. The IRA issued an apology in 2001 for killing civilians.

I think in the aftermath of violence, it required murderers like McGuiness and David Ervine to sit down and decide on peace.

An apology was not enough, of course it wasn't. Just like an apology for a misdirected drone that kills civilians is not enough. But they did follow through with their words and they did try to forge peace via consensus.

We can either decry that they took up arms and did disgusting things or celebrate that they stopped and changed.
Can we not do both? In fact isn't it quite important that we do both?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I remember the British Army being sent into Northern Ireland by Harold Wilson in 1969 to protect the Catholics who were being attacked by Protestants, and remember clearly a row of Catholic Houses on Fire after such an attack. It was the Catholics who were subject to an appalling system of Apartheid in Jobs, Housing and Voting Rights in those days. When the IRA started there was always a lot of tacit support for them in the Catholic Community.
I thought that originally the IRA were seen as defensive, against attacks by loyalist gangs and the police. And later, in fact, defense against the Army.

But this quickly morphed into the 'armed struggle', and issues about a united Ireland.

I guess that a loyalist would tell you that the police were attacked by civil rights protesters and the IRA from the beginning. Narratives abound.

There is also the issue of the 'gerrrymandered statelet', as described by nationalists and Republicans.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Dave:
quote:

Are we adding transatlantic telepathy to time travel now?
What precisely about this conversation lit a fire under you?
So you've got nothing, is that it?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Nothing for you.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We can either decry that they took up arms and did disgusting things or celebrate that they stopped and changed.
Can we not do both? In fact isn't it quite important that we do both?
Absolutely. It is, of course, good when any violent criminal renounces their violent criminality - but that renunciation does not excuse the violent criminality in any way or remove the need for justice to be done.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We can either decry that they took up arms and did disgusting things or celebrate that they stopped and changed.
Can we not do both? In fact isn't it quite important that we do both?
Absolutely. It is, of course, good when any violent criminal renounces their violent criminality - but that renunciation does not excuse the violent criminality in any way or remove the need for justice to be done.
But what is justice? Punishment of the guilty, even if that punishment forstalls peace? I think Mandela had it right.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We can either decry that they took up arms and did disgusting things or celebrate that they stopped and changed.
Can we not do both? In fact isn't it quite important that we do both?
Absolutely. It is, of course, good when any violent criminal renounces their violent criminality - but that renunciation does not excuse the violent criminality in any way or remove the need for justice to be done.
But what is justice? Punishment of the guilty, even if that punishment forstalls peace? I think Mandela had it right.
Did he though? I'm not sure South Africa's far enough down the road for us to judge whether it has worked or not. Certainly it prevented the initial explosion of the powder keg but at what future cost we're yet to see. At least the Truth and Reconciliation side of things provided a safety valve to an extent.

Spain took an even more damaging in the long term approach with its post-Franco "pact of forgetfulness." This basically said "bad things have been done on both sides during and since the Civil War, let's just act like they haven't. And no, we won't be digging up the mass grave on the edge of your village or prosecuting anyone." That's unravelling at the moment, after more or less keeping a lid on things for 40-odd years.

Ultimately, I'm not sure anything other than punishment of the guilty (on whatever side) works in the end. Just sometimes you have to wait for things to die down before you go after them.

As someone who visits South Africa regularly, I'd love to think that the can hasn't been kicked down the road, but I'm afraid that's what it looks like sometimes. Perhaps that just means that everyone else there is failing to live up to Mandela's standards and wisdom. Alternatively, perhaps it means he was unrealistic in the first place. I'd like him to have been right, but it's difficult to see how the jury is anything other than out on that one.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But what is justice?
A significant part of it is the concept that everyone is equal before the law. I wouldn't be able to murder hundreds of people then walk away unmolested while being hailed as a hero because I'd stopped murdering people, so why should he?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
What's that got to do with social justice?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But what is justice?
A significant part of it is the concept that everyone is equal before the law. I wouldn't be able to murder hundreds of people then walk away unmolested while being hailed as a hero because I'd stopped murdering people, so why should he?
Because that was part of the peace deal. I thought there was an amnesty for loyalists and Republicans, well, those convicted of various crimes. There has been controversy as to whether this should also apply to police and Army personnel, especially murders 'off the book'. And also crimes not prosecuted, but I don't know about that.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But what is justice?
A significant part of it is the concept that everyone is equal before the law. I wouldn't be able to murder hundreds of people then walk away unmolested while being hailed as a hero because I'd stopped murdering people, so why should he?
How shockingly democratic, MtM. [Biased]
The pragmatic answer is that you are not worth more than your sins.
In regards to justice, is punishment of the individual worth the loss of more lives?
Should McGuiness be hailed as a hero? Not in my book. But the killing and strife had to end somewhere and it would never be clean.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But what is justice?
A significant part of it is the concept that everyone is equal before the law. I wouldn't be able to murder hundreds of people then walk away unmolested while being hailed as a hero because I'd stopped murdering people, so why should he?
Because that was part of the peace deal.
OK. How many people do I have to kill before I can get "a peace deal" rather than "hunted down like a dog and locked up for the rest of my life"?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But what is justice?
A significant part of it is the concept that everyone is equal before the law. I wouldn't be able to murder hundreds of people then walk away unmolested while being hailed as a hero because I'd stopped murdering people, so why should he?
Because that was part of the peace deal.
OK. How many people do I have to kill before I can get "a peace deal" rather than "hunted down like a dog and locked up for the rest of my life"?
I'm not sure that you understand the politics of N. Ireland. It isn't a particular individual who gets a peace deal, but an amnesty for loyalists and Republicans who have committed various crimes. There are loyalist gunmen walking around the streets, and Republican gunmen walking around, but it seemed that most people preferred this to ongoing war. In other words, it was part of a whole package, including disarmament of various factions, and so on.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Thing is, one could actually negotiate with both the loyalist and republican terrorists in Northern Ireland. The unhappy consensus at Stormont was at least an effort to try to give everyone something that they could live with and move forward together.

It is simply impossible to negotiate with an ideologue whose bottom-line position is that the other must be destroyed. We've moved from barbarism into madness.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But what is justice?
A significant part of it is the concept that everyone is equal before the law. I wouldn't be able to murder hundreds of people then walk away unmolested while being hailed as a hero because I'd stopped murdering people, so why should he?
Because that was part of the peace deal.
OK. How many people do I have to kill before I can get "a peace deal" rather than "hunted down like a dog and locked up for the rest of my life"?
And you were doing so well. [Frown]
That really is a ridiculous question, can you not see this?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... Can you imagine Osama Bin Laden being let off scot free - and even celebrated - if he'd simply agreed to disband Al Quaeda and stop planning any more attacks against the West after 9/11? ...
Of course we can, and so can you, if that had been a possible price to pay to deliver some sort of peace and stability in the Middle East. 'Twas ever thus. Look at Kenyatta. It could have happened to Mugabe if he'd matured into a wise leader, father of a nation instead of an unstable tyrant.
quote:

... Or Harold Shipman being allowed to continue his medical practice in peace if he promised to go back to curing his patients rather than killing them? ...
Obviously not. Peace and reconciliation with Shipman would not have had anything to offer anyone.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That really is a ridiculous question, can you not see this?
Thought experiment:

If the BNP had mounted a decades-long campaign of violence, terror and murder across the country in the attempt to further their political goals, would you have had the same attitude towards their leadership if and when they got tired of it all and decided to accept a power-sharing arrangement in Westminster?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That really is a ridiculous question, can you not see this?
Thought experiment:

If the BNP had mounted a decades-long campaign of violence, terror and murder across the country in the attempt to further their political goals, would you have had the same attitude towards their leadership if and when they got tired of it all and decided to accept a power-sharing arrangement in Westminster?
If and when the BNP have the support of about 40% of the population, who have been second-class citizens for decades if not centuries, then I'll treat that seriously.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Thought experiment:

If the BNP had mounted a decades-long campaign of violence, terror and murder across the country in the attempt to further their political goals, would you have had the same attitude towards their leadership if and when they got tired of it all and decided to accept a power-sharing arrangement in Westminster?
The BNP do not represent anything other than a very small bunch of extreme idiots. In contrast, the Irish Republican movement includes a large number of people. So the two things are not even close to being the same thing.

You can't negotiate with the BNP, who want to reduce the rights of a significant proportion of the population in favour of white people. It is at least possible to negotiate with at least some Irish Republicans - the ones who are not wedded to complete destruction of the other and who are prepared to negotiate in the short term for things that may not completely fulfil their long-term goals.

It is pretty bloody difficult to see how the BNP could compromise or even what a compromise with the BNP would look like.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
It was long rumoured - unproven for many reasons - that both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness went round in Armour-Proofed Cars (courtesy of HMG) because they were regarded as Traitors by many in the IRA movements. (there were lots of splinter groups, IRA, Real IRA, Provos etc.) If that is true then both showed considerable courage in talking to HMG. Several 'Army Grasses' have been executed since the cease fire by the Republican Paramilitaries. One unanswered question from the Troubles is why Gerry and Martin weren't shot by the Protestant Paramilitaries (the UVF). It would have been easy to do. The one thing that died a long time ago in N.I. was 'Truth'.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That really is a ridiculous question, can you not see this?
Thought experiment:

If the BNP had mounted a decades-long campaign of violence, terror and murder across the country in the attempt to further their political goals, would you have had the same attitude towards their leadership if and when they got tired of it all and decided to accept a power-sharing arrangement in Westminster?
This is a better line of attack, though still faulty.
For what great and real injustice does the BNP stand? Have immigrants truly ruled the white English for so long and with such injustice?
Whilst I decry the IRA and its tactics, that which fueled it was at least in part real.

[ 22. March 2017, 16:12: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
It was long rumoured - unproven for many reasons - that both Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness went round in Armour-Proofed Cars (courtesy of HMG) because they were regarded as Traitors by many in the IRA movements. (there were lots of splinter groups, IRA, Real IRA, Provos etc.) If that is true then both showed considerable courage in talking to HMG. Several 'Army Grasses' have been executed since the cease fire by the Republican Paramilitaries. One unanswered question from the Troubles is why Gerry and Martin weren't shot by the Protestant Paramilitaries (the UVF). It would have been easy to do. The one thing that died a long time ago in N.I. was 'Truth'.
I thought they were left alone, as killing them would have produced a massive counter-attack, and possibly, a real civil war, even sucking in the Republic. Didn't the Republicans leave Paisley alone? Well, I guess some people would feel OK about a civil war.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The analogy with BNP is poor, as it leaves out the combination of nationalism, loyalism, UK forces, the Irish Republic in the south, and of course, the history of it all. As Terence MacSwiney said, 'we are prepared to suffer the most', (Lord Mayor of Cork).
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
The Civil Rights Movement to bring justice to the Catholic Community was formed in Belfast on 9 April 1967. The Christian Peace Group - the Corrymeela Community - was founded in 1965 by Ray Davey. The UVF (Protestant Paramilataries)declared War on the IRA and fired the first shots in carried out three attacks on Catholics in Belfast (May 1968). Upto this point the IRA had not fired a gun) I give these facts to show
1. There was a Peace Movement to redress the iniquities of the Catholics, and therefore violence didn't need to be shown.
2. It was the Protestant Militaries who killed the first people. The Protestant Police did attack Civil Rights Marches both in Derry and Belfast.
3. It could be said that the Catholics through the IRA were only defending themselves at first.

The British Army was sent to protect Catholic Areas but after 6 months started to become the Targets. From this point Martin McGuiness took an active role in the Violence. There was no need. The British Government was on the Catholics side and there was a peaceful alternative.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Just going back to the BNP analogy, some of the loyalists seem rather like them, and they were also given an amnesty.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Heavens, please don't let this thread turn into a debate about who started the violence in Northern Ireland.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The Civil Rights Movement to bring justice to the Catholic Community was formed in Belfast on 9 April 1967. The Christian Peace Group - the Corrymeela Community - was founded in 1965 by Ray Davey. The UVF (Protestant Paramilataries)declared War on the IRA and fired the first shots in carried out three attacks on Catholics in Belfast (May 1968). Upto this point the IRA had not fired a gun) I give these facts to show
1. There was a Peace Movement to redress the iniquities of the Catholics, and therefore violence didn't need to be shown.
2. It was the Protestant Militaries who killed the first people. The Protestant Police did attack Civil Rights Marches both in Derry and Belfast.
3. It could be said that the Catholics through the IRA were only defending themselves at first.

The British Army was sent to protect Catholic Areas but after 6 months started to become the Targets. From this point Martin McGuiness took an active role in the Violence. There was no need. The British Government was on the Catholics side and there was a peaceful alternative.
Yes, that's where I lose the thread. I remember the argument that the IRA initially were a a defensive line against attacks by police and loyalist gangs. And also the story that the army were at first greeted warmly, cups of tea, and so on.

But I can't remember at what point this turned to hostility. Obviously, Bloody Sunday was a turning point. But apart from that, I don't know. The history books say that 'relations soured' with the army, as raids on houses increased, and there were allegations of army killings and collusion with loyalists. Of course, internment was a big mistake, people said that there were queues to join the Provisionals in broad daylight in the street, maybe this is another legend.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
One unanswered question from the Troubles is why Gerry and Martin weren't shot by the Protestant Paramilitaries (the UVF). It would have been easy to do. The one thing that died a long time ago in N.I. was 'Truth'.
And lo! there was this... Admittedly, not UVF, but UDA.

I remember this very well, Garden Hermit, because I recall everyone at the time laughing themselves silly at the thought that the Prod paras were so hopeless, they couldn't even kill a Shinner at point-blank range! It was 'accepted fact' that while the Republicans were well trained (thank you, Libya), well financed (thank you, America) and well protected (thank you, Rome), the poor bloody Prods were as effective in their campaigns as a chocolate teapot. So went the story.

Not entirely true, of course. But there was across the Protestant population that day a universal rolling of the eyes, when the news report came out about the botched assassination attempt; as much as to say, 'yep, par for the course, that!'
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that's where I lose the thread. I remember the argument that the IRA initially were a a defensive line against attacks by police and loyalist gangs. And also the story that the army were at first greeted warmly, cups of tea, and so on.

I wouldn't challenge this view too strongly. But only to remind us, that the IRA - originally the Irish Republican Brethren - began its campaign for Irish independence in the late 18th century, and at no stage ever reneged on its campaign aim to 'free' all of Ireland's counties, including The Six Counties in The North.

In its earliest days it was supported by - or at least had allied interests with - many Protestants who wanted independence for Ireland, and were against Partition; including some sections of the Presbyterian Church. In fact, one IRB hero, Sam Maguire, who was also responsible for introducing Michael Collins to the organization, was a Republican Church of Ireland man from County Cork.

By the 1960s, things had died down a little too much for some of the boys in the RA, and needless to say a British army 'invading' The Six Counties - on the top of the Civil unrest - was just the gift they wanted to get up and running again, and firing on all cylinders. What alternative there could've been, I don't know. Very messy. But political opportunism has never been too far away from whatever so-called principles the IRA ever affected to espouse.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Very good posts, Anselmina, and by Garden Hermit. Very informative.

Of course, you could say that the Brits never miss an opportunity to fuck up big time, but maybe that is another legend.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
The best bit I can find on the start of the IRA Violence is
http://www.iisresource.org/Documents/DM01_Outline_Answer.pdf
However that still doesn't really answer the question as to why the IRA turned on the Army, - although Catholics/Republicans had for many years been brought up on a diet of disliking the 'British', - particularly its Government and Army. Maybe only McGuiness knew the real answer to all that.

The importance of establishing the cause of the Conflict does have a bearing on why McGuiness got involved. If he saw his role as 'defending' his Neighbours he can be understood in a more positive light; but if he saw an 'opportunity' to unite the North with the South his legacy seems much more tarnished.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Ultimately, I'm not sure anything other than punishment of the guilty (on whatever side) works in the end. Just sometimes you have to wait for things to die down before you go after them.
I think this is a somewhat modern view of things that ignores the large number of guilty people who have escaped punishment down the ages (and down to this day). After several generations things have been (mostly) forgotten, and people go on as before.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
One unanswered question from the Troubles is why Gerry and Martin weren't shot by the Protestant Paramilitaries (the UVF). It would have been easy to do. The one thing that died a long time ago in N.I. was 'Truth'.
My father, who had an interest in current affairs, always used to wonder how Ian Paisly managed to endlessly rant in the way he liked to do without ever being plugged by a keen eye and a sniper's rifle.
Things are rarely what they seem in these situations. Innocent folk inevertably make up a far greater proportion of the casualty list than those you might rightly expect to see there.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
My father, who had an interest in current affairs, always used to wonder how Ian Paisly managed to endlessly rant in the way he liked to do without ever being plugged by a keen eye and a sniper's rifle.
ISTR he had a regular spot where he turned up to preach in the open air - I assume that it was felt that making him a martyr would be more harmful than allowing him to continue to rant.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I thought Paisley was out of bounds. It would have led to utter carnage, and the person killing him would be killed, and probably tortured first.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
I had thought that there had been campaigns by the IRA in the 40's and 50's, even before backlash against the Civil Rights movement in the late 60's.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought Paisley was out of bounds. It would have led to utter carnage, and the person killing him would be killed, and probably tortured first.
I was often under the impression, from years of news and comment, that the various paramilitary Loyalists were given to greater acts of barbarism than the IRA. But then what did any of us know about what was really going on.

The UK public were constantly fed bias news and mock appeasement in the form of the Birmingham six and the Guildford four. At one time the captured IRA perps were wicked criminals then, after stalemate set in they morphed into Political prisoners.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Maybe only McGuiness knew the real answer to all that.
Unfortunately only McGuiness knew the real answer to many things, answers which he never shared in order to allow bereaved families to get closure. In 2007 the PSNI decided it had enough evidence to question him with regards to the Claudy bombings of of 1972, otherwise known as Bloody Monday in which 9 people, including an 8 year old girl and 2 teenagers, were killed by 3 car bombs. But it was considered too politically sensitive to pursue it. In fact he has taken the answers to many unsolved murders to his grave.

I reiterate my universalist belief, that all will be brought to repentance, but I don't believe that forgiveness comes until we've acknowledged and experienced the pain of our own actions. There's no evidence that this cold and vicious killer renounced violence because he regretted it or believed it was wrong. He simply realised that the IRA was a busted flush, and that he would never terrorise the people of Northern Ireland or the British government to capitulate to his demands. In the GFA, he and his conies were successful in obtaining immunity from prosecution for their vile acts. Yet members of the RUC, the PSNI and the British Army were granted no parallel immunity even though they were merely serving their country where they happened to be. Another of Tony Blair's glowing achievements.

We are not God, but why should the State forgive those who neither repent nor confess their sins?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:


We are not God, but why should the State forgive those who neither repent nor confess their sins?
OK, now rephrase this as if you (a) believe you are in a war and (b) don't recognise the legitimacy of the State powers you are fighting.

It isn't as obvious as you make out.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Colin and Wendy Parry, parents who lost a son to an IRA bomb in Warrington said that they could never forgive the IRA for killing their son, but interesting also said they got on well with McGuiness on a personal level and often shared a platform with him.

According to the Warrington Guardian, McGuiness said this of them:
quote:

"I admire tremendously Colin and Wendy Parry - I think what they went through was absolutely horrendous and the brand of republicanism that I represent was responsible for that."

"Their hearts were broken by us."

"I think that Colin being prepared to meet with me in Warrington, and Wendy, was a massively courageous act on their part.

They could quite easily have taken the easy way out and said 'we are not going to meet with someone who effectively was a representative of the brand of republicanism that took our son'.

"These are two very, very special people and I think that all of us who are determined to, even against the backdrop of all the setbacks, move the peace process forward - the more people like Colin and Wendy who are prepared to put their head above the parapet, who are prepared to do that, then as those people come forward then the stronger the demand will be from every section of our community that we have to be reconciled as a people - not just the Catholics and Protestants of the North, but the entire community in the North and people in the South as well, but also with the people in this island with the people in Britain. I think the journey we are on is a remarkable journey."
Maybe the reason he never "apologised" was that he recognised the deep pain that people felt was far beyond anything that could be undone by saying sorry.

[ 22. March 2017, 20:02: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
I had thought that there had been campaigns by the IRA in the 40's and 50's, even before backlash against the Civil Rights movement in the late 60's.
Certainly, as Anselmina points out. But these campaigns were very ineffective and so was the organisation in general - almost a joke, really, so that Flanders and Swann could sing in the 1960s...

"He blows up policemen, or so I have heard
And blames it on Cromwell and William the Third!" (Song of Patriotic Prejudice)

But by the late 1970s things were very different. A former soldier rather winningly described them as "by far the best terrorists I've encountered - they were really good at what they did..."
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, now rephrase this as if you (a) believe you are in a war and (b) don't recognise the legitimacy of the State powers you are fighting.
Throughout the Troubles we all heard a lot about how the IRA didn't recognise the legitimacy of the State in which they were born and lived. We say them turn their backs on the judges sentencing them in court as recognition of this. And we heard it used as apologetics for their murderous campaign. Like many other people, I don't accept that argument. The Nationalists in Northern Ireland were never disenfranchised. Their problem was that they were a minority and so couldn't get what they wanted. They were neither expelled nor prevented from leaving. No Cyprus type enforced partition. But many times, over a period of 50 years, they refused to participate in civic matters as a protest against recognition of the State.

There were undoubtedly justifiable grievances, inequalities which needed to be redressed and wrongs which needed to be righted. A Civil Rights movement similar to that of Black America in the 1960's was justified. But the bomb and the bullet never. Because nobody took away their vote nor prevented them voting with their feet. But it was part of 20th century Irish Nationalism's obsession with the inclusion of the gun in politics. A good argument could be made against the partition of Ireland in 1922, that it gerrymandered a corner of the island into a Unionist Statelet. But when we look at what De Valera's government did with the 26 counties, can the Unionists be blamed for not wanting to be part of it?

De Valera liked to peddle the myth of an idyllic rural Ireland with "comely maidens dancing at crossroads and the romping of sturdy children" but this was the country where the Church was so much above the law that it presided over the Magdalene Laundries and where unwanted bastards were starved of food and medical attention and buried in mass graves in Tuam. Home rule certainly meant Rome rule back then.

That Martin McGuiness and people like him were raised in a culture which didn't recognise the state they lived in and thought it right to take up arms against it is no reason why we should condone or sympathise with it. It's still murder and treason.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
It should be remembered that many IRA men refused to recognize the courts in the Republic of Ireland as well.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Exclamation Mark claimed "The peace process owes a lot to the Twin Towers" - this is ridiculous.
I heard it as being Omagh (which was 98), that shocked things down.
(but not sure if that was a mistaken impression, wiki seems to suggest it followed the GFriA, but preceeded an RIRA ceasefire)

Regardless I think 9/11 did seem to have an effect on European terrorist movements and the associated governments (both in terms of powers they could use, and not wanting to be too stupid).
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
To spare quetzalcoatl's blushes - that quote's from me.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
It may be true that Mr McGuinness would have abandoned the peace process if the Twin Towers hadn't happened but to judge him for actions that his alternative self might have committed in a counterfactual parallel universe seems somewhat excessive.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maybe the reason he never "apologised" was that he recognised the deep pain that people felt was far beyond anything that could be undone by saying sorry. [/QB]
That's a big "maybe" but also a brilliant cop out if you think about it - "I don't need to apologise because nothing will make it better."

You're also assuming something in McGuinness' mind but projecting rather a lot more onto the families of the victims.

Maybe he never apologised because he didn't repent and/or he was too embarrassed to take a further step that might just show a further weakness in the eyes of his comrades. Maybe.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
That's a big "maybe" but also a brilliant cop out if you think about it - "I don't need to apologise because nothing will make it better."
It is only a cop out if you think it is easier and/or better to say sorry or to visit the family of someone who died in an attack you were involved in and listen and appreciate their pain.

A true apology is more than just words. There are some things you can't apologise for, others for which an apology is completely inadequate and some where the only sensible way forward is to seek to reach out across the barricades to those who are hurt and resolve to make the future as better as much as it can possibly be - acknowledging the hurt, the loss, the pain and the terror that you, and the movement you represent, have caused.

quote:
You're also assuming something in McGuinness' mind but projecting rather a lot more onto the families of the victims.
No, I'm listening to the words of victims who have met McGuiness and often say that they found him to be an open person even when they said to his face that the things he had done were unforgivable.

quote:
Maybe he never apologised because he didn't repent and/or he was too embarrassed to take a further step that might just show a further weakness in the eyes of his comrades. Maybe.
If you are too embarrassed or too selfish or too egoistic or too full of your own right-ness, you don't go and meet victims and you don't humble yourself by saying in public that your side caused great hurt and pain to an uninvolved family.

Incidentally, he already showed weakness to some of his comrades by going into power-sharing with the DUP, in visiting a war grave and in shaking the hand of the British monarch.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, I'm listening to the words of victims who have met McGuiness and often say that they found him to be an open person even when they said to his face that the things he had done were unforgivable.
I'm sure that Martin McGuiness was humbled by his meeting with Colin and Wendy Parry. I don't know much about the Parrys, whether for example, they have strong Christian conviction. But whatever they have, they are an example to all humanity of Christ's words on the cross, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." It tells us much more about Colin and Wendy than it does about Martin.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It tells us much more about Colin and Wendy than it does about Martin.
Well, there we disagree. Burying the hatchet is a two-way process. It requires acceptance from both sides of the Other, even if that meeting begins with frostiness and straight talking.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For what great and real injustice does the BNP stand?
Ah, so it's an "ends justify the means" argument?

quote:
Whilst I decry the IRA and its tactics, that which fueled it was at least in part real.
I don't care how real your grievances are, they do not justify murdering hundreds of innocent people. I would not have anticipated that being a controversial statement.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't care how real your grievances are, they do not justify murdering hundreds of innocent people. I would not have anticipated that being a controversial statement.
So, out of interest, what have you done about drones launched by the USA and the UK which have killed innocents? Do you think the nukes dropped on Japan were justified?

In the event of an invasion by Germany during WW2, do you agree that the correct response of the population would have been to "keep calm and carry on" or to resist in whatever way was available?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Ultimately, I'm not sure anything other than punishment of the guilty (on whatever side) works in the end. Just sometimes you have to wait for things to die down before you go after them.
I think this is a somewhat modern view of things that ignores the large number of guilty people who have escaped punishment down the ages (and down to this day). After several generations things have been (mostly) forgotten, and people go on as before.
By that logic we could close down every court and release every prisoner in the country. After all, in several generations they will all be (mostly) forgotten.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't care how real your grievances are, they do not justify murdering hundreds of innocent people. I would not have anticipated that being a controversial statement.
So, out of interest, what have you done about drones launched by the USA and the UK which have killed innocents?
I voted out the UK government that decided following the US into Afghanistan/Iraq was the right thing to do. Unfortunately the subsequent government has continued the drone strikes, but there isn't really a third option to vote for.

quote:
Do you think the nukes dropped on Japan were justified?
The nukes are a grey area because there is an argument that they ultimately saved more lives than they destroyed by persuading Japan to surrender rather than fighting to the last man. In an all-out total war such difficult decisions have to be made, and there is seldom an option that avoids any death at all.

I'll be happy to join you in decrying the firebombing of Dresden as a war crime, though. That served no meaningful tactical or strategic purpose.

quote:
In the event of an invasion by Germany during WW2, do you agree that the correct response of the population would have been to "keep calm and carry on" or to resist in whatever way was available?
In an alternate 2017 where Germany won the war and Britain had been under Nazi rule for the last 60+ years, I would not agree that bombing a shopping centre in Munich was a legitimate means of resistance. Resistance against occupying armed forces is one thing, killing innocent civilians is another.

If the IRA had stuck to military targets I would have had far less of a problem with them.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Ultimately, I'm not sure anything other than punishment of the guilty (on whatever side) works in the end. Just sometimes you have to wait for things to die down before you go after them.
I think this is a somewhat modern view of things that ignores the large number of guilty people who have escaped punishment down the ages (and down to this day). After several generations things have been (mostly) forgotten, and people go on as before.
By that logic we could close down every court and release every prisoner in the country. After all, in several generations they will all be (mostly) forgotten.
It isn't necessarily meant to be prescriptive but descriptive, and a response to betjemaniac's contention that "I'm not sure anything other than punishment of the guilty (on whatever side) works in the end".

The fact is that plenty of the guilty have escaped punishment over the years, and continue to do so in various parts of the world (including the UK)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For what great and real injustice does the BNP stand?
Ah, so it's an "ends justify the means" argument?

quote:
Whilst I decry the IRA and its tactics, that which fueled it was at least in part real.
I don't care how real your grievances are, they do not justify murdering hundreds of innocent people. I would not have anticipated that being a controversial statement.
Not to you or me, they did to them. They did to the murderer in Westminster yesterday. Who gives a damn about justification stories? Apart from as symptoms? How can we prevent this?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Interesting comparisons with Michael Collins, ruthless killer, politician and negotiator. One big difference was that Collins' career was much shorter - he was killed in 1922, and only two years before, he had organized the killing of the Cairo gang, (and other British agents).

You can probably also cite differences in the political history - Collins was involved in the war of independence, McGuinness was involved in a kind of distorted version of it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For what great and real injustice does the BNP stand?
Ah, so it's an "ends justify the means" argument?
Not at all what I said.
quote:

quote:
Whilst I decry the IRA and its tactics, that which fueled it was at least in part real.
I don't care how real your grievances are, they do not justify murdering hundreds of innocent people. I would not have anticipated that being a controversial statement.
Show me where I said the end justifies the means. Show me where I argue that murdering people is acceptable collateral. I'd say that I'd wait, but as I didn't say those things, that would be a bit of forever.
In simple terms: What the IRA did was bad even though their intentions might have been better than their actions. The BNP isn't a good counter example as they are naught but evil.
This is not a zero-sum situation. It would further the discussion if you did not treat it so.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
Really don't want to start discussing the BNP, but they reflected a deep dissatisfaction of many of the ordinary 'working class' who felt they were being left behind and blamed immigration for their troubles. Gordon Brown's dismissal of Mrs Duffy's worries as being 'Racist' is a good example of why people started voting BNP. Luckily for the UK most of that vote went to UKIP and the BNP disappeared overnight. Its always good to look at the problems behind the outward rhetoric. I suggest there are many places in the World where there are a 'significant minority' who think they have been 'left behind' and often have been with Life-long work being replaced by Zero Hour Contracts. (There's enough new themes in there to keep you all busy for a year)
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Show me where I said the end justifies the means. Show me where I argue that murdering people is acceptable collateral. I'd say that I'd wait, but as I didn't say those things, that would be a bit of forever.
You appear to be saying that murdering people is less bad if the people doing it have a cause that you agree with.

quote:
In simple terms: What the IRA did was bad even though their intentions might have been better than their actions. The BNP isn't a good counter example as they are naught but evil.
The point of the counter example was to illustrate that your perception of how bad something is appears to be directly liked to how worthy you think the cause in which is done happens to be. Your answer confirms that.

For the avoidance of doubt, my position is that killing innocent civilians by bombing a shopping centre is just as evil and wrong if it's done by the BNP, the IRA, or anyone else.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Show me where I said the end justifies the means. Show me where I argue that murdering people is acceptable collateral. I'd say that I'd wait, but as I didn't say those things, that would be a bit of forever.
You appear to be saying that murdering people is less bad if the people doing it have a cause that you agree with. ...
LilBuddha, it wasn't just Marvin the Martian who picked up the impression that that was what you thought. I did too.


Going back to what Garden Hermit said, feeling left behind by society may explain why some people get involved in the BNP. Nevertheless, if something is wrong being able to explain why some people do it, doesn't excuse it or somehow make it less wrong. Even if 'my wife/husband doesn't understand me' is in that person's case true, doesn't somehow make adultery less treacherous.

[ 24. March 2017, 14:09: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

For the avoidance of doubt, my position is that killing innocent civilians by bombing a shopping centre is just as evil and wrong if it's done by the BNP, the IRA, or anyone else.
This is my position as well. My "anyone else" includes the military as well.

But none of my statements is about this. What I am saying is that taking McGuinness to trial would not have been worth the lives it likely would have cost.
Ending the violence as peacefully as possible served better than giving everyone what they deserved.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, some people don't seem to understand the peace deal, as if it meant letting off some Republican murderers, and that's it. It also meant letting off loyalist murderers, and of course, the withdrawal of various groups from violence, even the gruesome INLA. Plus of course, shared government. It's a no-brainer, isn't it?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, some people don't seem to understand the peace deal, as if it meant letting off some Republican murderers, and that's it. It also meant letting off loyalist murderers, and of course, the withdrawal of various groups from violence, even the gruesome INLA. Plus of course, shared government. It's a no-brainer, isn't it?
Yes, actually it really is. The Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent (more or less) lasting peace probably represents the best outcome for Ulster that was realistically possible given the appalling state it was in 30 years ago. Yes, the fact that mass murderers were set free or never tried is extremely distasteful, but the alternative was to perpetuate the cycle of violence, "adding yet more darkness to a night already without stars", as MLK put it.

The fact that politics in NI these days is about housing and schools and creating jobs, rather than keeping the Fenians in their place or killing as many Brits as possible, is one of the great good news stories of modern Britain. Whether the settlement will survive Brexit remains to be seen.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Or will survive the death of McGuinness? I wonder if some Unionists are ruing his death, as he had the authority to lead the Republicans, along with Adams, and also rap the knuckles of the nutters, as far as he could. Is there anyone else who can do this?
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting comparisons with Michael Collins, ruthless killer, politician and negotiator. One big difference was that Collins' career was much shorter - he was killed in 1922, and only two years before, he had organized the killing of the Cairo gang, (and other British agents).

You can probably also cite differences in the political history - Collins was involved in the war of independence, McGuinness was involved in a kind of distorted version of it.
It is interesting: the Squad were certainly ruthless killers, but did they ever indiscriminately target innocents, as opposed to agents of the British state?

Given de Valera's ruthless elimination of IRA men who threatened the Free State, McGuiness was lucky that he never met the real McCoy.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
A few things - The Border between North and South Ireland has always been regarded as an 'Economic Opportunity' - usually spelt D I S H O N E S T. So when there was a ban on Contraceptives in the South they were obtained from the North, and when British Beef was banned because of BSE it was quickly re-labelled Irish and move across the Border. The British Army couldn't stop cross-border 'trade' and neither can anyone else.

I once made joke about the Rev Iain Paisley. I was scolded by a Catholic who told me he was the best MP/MEP anyone could wish for. As soon as there was a problem - such as a Harbour Wall destroyed in a Storm - he was on the phone to London and Bruxelles and within the Hour the £Millions needed for repair was given
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
That's an important point. Any attempt to impose a hard border will turn Fermanagh into bandit country again. No doubt there are "retired" paramilitaries on both sides who would grasp that
business opportunity with both hands, and where there's smuggling, there are gangs and violence. With McGuiness and Paisley no longer around to impose some discipline, things could get toxic quite quickly.

[ 27. March 2017, 09:21: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting comparisons with Michael Collins, ruthless killer, politician and negotiator. One big difference was that Collins' career was much shorter - he was killed in 1922, and only two years before, he had organized the killing of the Cairo gang, (and other British agents).

You can probably also cite differences in the political history - Collins was involved in the war of independence, McGuinness was involved in a kind of distorted version of it.
It is interesting: the Squad were certainly ruthless killers, but did they ever indiscriminately target innocents, as opposed to agents of the British state?

Given de Valera's ruthless elimination of IRA men who threatened the Free State, McGuiness was lucky that he never met the real McCoy.
You are probably right, and many people have described the 'degeneration' of the IRA, into various squalid gangs. Although, these things are very subjective of course, and the treatment of the early civil rights groups by the police was itself squalid.

I don't recollect Collins targeting civilians, although didn't he have a thing about bankers and other financial people, who supported the UK? I mean, he had them killed?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
That's an important point. Any attempt to impose a hard border will turn Fermanagh into bandit country again. No doubt there are "retired" paramilitaries on both sides who would grasp that
business opportunity with both hands, and where there's smuggling, there are gangs and violence. With McGuiness and Paisley no longer around to impose some discipline, things could get toxic quite quickly.
The situation now is pretty dicey, as it looks as if Sinn Fein are trying to get Arlene Foster sacked. But with the shenanigans over Brexit, I think you are right, that McGuinness and Paisley will be missed. Chaos looms.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You are probably right, and many people have described the 'degeneration' of the IRA, into various squalid gangs. Although, these things are very subjective of course, and the treatment of the early civil rights groups by the police was itself squalid.

I don't recollect Collins targeting civilians, although didn't he have a thing about bankers and other financial people, who supported the UK? I mean, he had them killed?
Couldn't find details from a quick google, but wouldn't surprise me: the Squad had a particular beef with the murderers in the Cairo Gang, but targeted other agents of the British state.

That strategic ability's the crucial difference between the original republicans, and the gangsters who took their name: Collins and his comrades were no saints, but were statesmen-in-waiting, learned in Irish history and constitutional matters; McGuinness started out as an ill-educated street thug, tied up with an organization that indiscriminately slaughtered civilians. IRA men who tried similar antics in the Free State were promptly court martialed and shot.

In massacring civilians, and then, with internment, in kidnapping and torturing innocents, the British state was no better, behaving like another gang. Both parties were violent, but worse, incompetently violent.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
That said, McGuinness became a statesman, and his contribution to the peace process was substantial. He deserves full credit for that. It's just a shame that so many have to give their lives for his education.

Guess the old Vulcan proverb applies: only Nixon could go to China.

With chaos threatening the north, in political terms if no other, he'll be sorely missed.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
I read an article in the 'i' newspaper yesterday about McGuiness. Not at all flattering. And also an article in the Corrymeela Christian Peace Community in which he gave an interview which seemed very reasonable. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde came to mind.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0