Register to Comment
Page 3 of 98 FirstFirst 12345 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 972
Like Tree431Likes
  1. #21
    TakeitAll TakeitAll is offline

    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    817

    Quote Originally Posted by Tough Paddy View Post
    I don't believe that McGuiness sought to atone for anything. In the early part of his life he believed that violence was the best means to achieve one's aims. In the later decades of his life he reallsed the futility of such violence and as such pursued a differeent path. It really is as simple as that.
    You missed the bit that in between IRA/Sinn Fein thought they could do both, continue with terrorism while at the same time pursue political aims.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    derryman derryman is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,613

    Every one appears to have forgotten that when Martin joined the IRA , politics to that date had not worked in the six counties for several hundred years and at that time it seemed politics were never going to work. I wonder if even today , when we have so many agreements being reneged upon by the British and Irish governments and being stonewalled by unionism if indeed politic is even working now.

    Irish republicans are not with out blame but their adopted position was for them the only position they felt they had left to them.
    Oh I know John Hume will be used to counteract my argument. Irish history has many well intentioned people like John Hume all who were betrayed and destroyed by their opponents in unionism and the British government.

    The betrayals still continue.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    DavidCaldwell DavidCaldwell is offline
    DavidCaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,700

    @derryman

    You seem to be disregarding totally the views and interests of the victims of Republican violence. Why should your views be so much more important than theirs? Or perhaps I am being unfair and you are taking their views into consideration. If so, please let me know.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline
    StarryPlough01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    9,252

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidCaldwell View Post
    By the lights of large strands of Nationalist tradition, Martin McGuinness was a great man, not only for his role as a peace-maker, but also for the determination, bravery and leadership he showed during the conflict.

    One of the reasons why, on his death, McGuinness has been widely honoured is that, while the wider world, on the whole, believes that what McGuiness and the IRA did in the conflict was wrong, it accepts that a Republican viewpoint would see McGuinness’ actions as justified. Arlene Foster and Bill Clinton were doing what Martin Luther King articulated – “I judge a man by his principles, not my own”.

    If you agree with my initial statement, you might want to consider the implications of “By the lights of …”. This implicitly recognises that there are other viewpoints. If we accept the principle of the equal worth of all people, then due weight has to be given to the full range of viewpoints and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we need move towards judging right and wrong, justice and injustice with due consideration to all viewpoints, to all people.

    This would have been the final step in Martin McGuinness’ journey from conflict to peace. He would have recognised that, although the IRA’s actions were justified from a Republican point of view, they were not justified from other points of view – most importantly, from the point of views of the victims of the violence. And he would have come to conclusion that, in consequence of this and the fact that there were alternatives, the IRA violence was wrong.

    Norman Tebbit has stated very publicly that he believes that McGuinness never made this step, never “atoned for his crimes.” I myself believe that McGuinness did complete his journey and did realise that it would have been better if there had been no IRA violence.

    Why do I believe this? McGuinness acknowledged publicly that those bereaved by the IRA generally see the killings as murder. McGuinness was an intelligent man and would know that current Republican emphasis on the importance of equality implies that this viewpoint is no less valid than the Republican viewpoint. Hence, it follows that one cannot make any simple conclusion that the killings were right. And if they were not right, then they were wrong.

    If so, then why did McGuinness not express some regret? One possible answer is simply that it was not yet the right time. Republicans were both perpetrators and victims of the violence. It is only human nature that dead friends and family weight more heavily in our minds than dead strangers. When you feel that, overall, you are the wronged one, it is difficult to say sorry.

    I believe that, together with McGuinness and Paisley, most of us here have completed the journey. Most of us would agree that, as Vivabrigada puts it, “it wasn’t worth a single life.” Again, we, on all sides, find it difficult to say sorry, but we do wish that “many things had been done differently.”

    I have two questions.

    Firstly, for anyone who disagrees with Vivabrigida’s statement – is this possibly because you are seeing things only from a distance, from far away from Belfast or only from the present time?

    Secondly – do you agree that McGuinness completed such a journey from conflict to peace?

    Emboldened and underlined is my own personal mantra.

    I think that he would have been carrying the pain in his heart for all the lost lives... always ...
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    McSlaggart McSlaggart is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    11,090

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidCaldwell View Post
    By

    Norman Tebbit has stated very publicly that he believes that McGuinness never made this step, never “atoned for his crimes.” I myself believe that McGuinness did complete his journey and did realise that it would have been better if there had been no IRA violence.

    You do know that the Northern Ireland police force was killing people for resisting 2nd class citizenship before people in the Official IRA decided to meet violence with violence? You once asked me to look up Cain on this very point and did not like the answer you got.

    The question is "Should a Christian go to war?". The Bible is a bit confused on the issue......

    From my perspective Martin has as good a chance when he meets God as the next person who fought for what they thought was the right reason.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    RodShaft RodShaft is offline
    RodShaft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    7,894

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidCaldwell View Post
    By the lights of large strands of Nationalist tradition, Martin McGuinness was a great man, not only for his role as a peace-maker, but also for the determination, bravery and leadership he showed during the conflict.

    One of the reasons why, on his death, McGuinness has been widely honoured is that, while the wider world, on the whole, believes that what McGuiness and the IRA did in the conflict was wrong, it accepts that a Republican viewpoint would see McGuinness’ actions as justified. Arlene Foster and Bill Clinton were doing what Martin Luther King articulated – “I judge a man by his principles, not my own”.

    If you agree with my initial statement, you might want to consider the implications of “By the lights of …”. This implicitly recognises that there are other viewpoints. If we accept the principle of the equal worth of all people, then due weight has to be given to the full range of viewpoints and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we need move towards judging right and wrong, justice and injustice with due consideration to all viewpoints, to all people.

    This would have been the final step in Martin McGuinness’ journey from conflict to peace. He would have recognised that, although the IRA’s actions were justified from a Republican point of view, they were not justified from other points of view – most importantly, from the point of views of the victims of the violence. And he would have come to conclusion that, in consequence of this and the fact that there were alternatives, the IRA violence was wrong.

    Norman Tebbit has stated very publicly that he believes that McGuinness never made this step, never “atoned for his crimes.” I myself believe that McGuinness did complete his journey and did realise that it would have been better if there had been no IRA violence.

    Why do I believe this? McGuinness acknowledged publicly that those bereaved by the IRA generally see the killings as murder. McGuinness was an intelligent man and would know that current Republican emphasis on the importance of equality implies that this viewpoint is no less valid than the Republican viewpoint. Hence, it follows that one cannot make any simple conclusion that the killings were right. And if they were not right, then they were wrong.

    If so, then why did McGuinness not express some regret? One possible answer is simply that it was not yet the right time. Republicans were both perpetrators and victims of the violence. It is only human nature that dead friends and family weight more heavily in our minds than dead strangers. When you feel that, overall, you are the wronged one, it is difficult to say sorry.

    I believe that, together with McGuinness and Paisley, most of us here have completed the journey. Most of us would agree that, as Vivabrigada puts it, “it wasn’t worth a single life.” Again, we, on all sides, find it difficult to say sorry, but we do wish that “many things had been done differently.”

    I have two questions.

    Firstly, for anyone who disagrees with Vivabrigida’s statement – is this possibly because you are seeing things only from a distance, from far away from Belfast or only from the present time?

    Secondly – do you agree that McGuinness completed such a journey from conflict to peace?
    The is nothing wrong with killing people. Governments do it all the time.

    This State was created by killing people.

    The problem with the IRA campaign was that it was not effective enough.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    RodShaft RodShaft is offline
    RodShaft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    7,894

    Quote Originally Posted by StarryPlough01 View Post
    Emboldened and underlined is my own personal mantra.

    I think that he would have been carrying the pain in his heart for all the lost lives... always ...
    Not even one, Starey?

    You must be in tears over government policy which kills people on hospital trollies every day.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    Supra Supra is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,058

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidCaldwell View Post
    By the lights of large strands of Nationalist tradition, Martin McGuinness was a great man, not only for his role as a peace-maker, but also for the determination, bravery and leadership he showed during the conflict.

    One of the reasons why, on his death, McGuinness has been widely honoured is that, while the wider world, on the whole, believes that what McGuiness and the IRA did in the conflict was wrong, it accepts that a Republican viewpoint would see McGuinness’ actions as justified. Arlene Foster and Bill Clinton were doing what Martin Luther King articulated – “I judge a man by his principles, not my own”.

    If you agree with my initial statement, you might want to consider the implications of “By the lights of …”. This implicitly recognises that there are other viewpoints. If we accept the principle of the equal worth of all people, then due weight has to be given to the full range of viewpoints and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we need move towards judging right and wrong, justice and injustice with due consideration to all viewpoints, to all people.

    This would have been the final step in Martin McGuinness’ journey from conflict to peace. He would have recognised that, although the IRA’s actions were justified from a Republican point of view, they were not justified from other points of view – most importantly, from the point of views of the victims of the violence. And he would have come to conclusion that, in consequence of this and the fact that there were alternatives, the IRA violence was wrong.

    Norman Tebbit has stated very publicly that he believes that McGuinness never made this step, never “atoned for his crimes.” I myself believe that McGuinness did complete his journey and did realise that it would have been better if there had been no IRA violence.

    Why do I believe this? McGuinness acknowledged publicly that those bereaved by the IRA generally see the killings as murder. McGuinness was an intelligent man and would know that current Republican emphasis on the importance of equality implies that this viewpoint is no less valid than the Republican viewpoint. Hence, it follows that one cannot make any simple conclusion that the killings were right. And if they were not right, then they were wrong.

    If so, then why did McGuinness not express some regret? One possible answer is simply that it was not yet the right time. Republicans were both perpetrators and victims of the violence. It is only human nature that dead friends and family weight more heavily in our minds than dead strangers. When you feel that, overall, you are the wronged one, it is difficult to say sorry.

    I believe that, together with McGuinness and Paisley, most of us here have completed the journey. Most of us would agree that, as Vivabrigada puts it, “it wasn’t worth a single life.” Again, we, on all sides, find it difficult to say sorry, but we do wish that “many things had been done differently.”

    I have two questions.

    Firstly, for anyone who disagrees with Vivabrigida’s statement – is this possibly because you are seeing things only from a distance, from far away from Belfast or only from the present time?

    Secondly – do you agree that McGuinness completed such a journey from conflict to peace?
    Nice OP.

    I do not agree with Vivabrigada.
    Firstly, if you are to choose that IRA violence was wrong it's too easy to claim the opposite is right. If the IRA was wrong then those actions taken against the IRA were right. The IRA did not act in a vacuum. I understand that you must see all sides but eventually you must choose a side. Two reasons.
    Firstly, if you accept that there are sides you are subject to them. If they are acting and you are present in that space you are put in a side regardless of your opinion. There is no escape from that. You can be on one side or on the outside but if you do not choose you are put on a side.
    Secondly. If half the people choose that violence is wrong and the other half choose it is not, you are wide open to abuse. If we accept there are violent people involved then that fact makes it impossible to combat that violence peacefully and not be a victim of it.
    The second reason is important to me. I think Martin McGuinness and the British security forces arrived at violence at different times but the only way out was to arrive at peace at the same time. And I think that's what happened.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    Boy M5 Boy M5 is offline
    Boy M5's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    20,202

    The sad thing is we have an agreed Ireland.
    That is now being trashed by Brexit.
    Which DUP leadership supported. I don't understand why as it threatens to destabalise what was hard won.
    They are intelligent people, surely they are not economically and politically illiterate?

    As for OP McGuinness completed his journey, but not his personal political goal of a united Ireland
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    Catalpast Catalpast is offline
    Catalpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    15,168

    Fact is the Republican Movement shape shifted into something different over the years

    - evolutionary necessity perhaps

    - and the survival of the fittest

    They did achieve one thing and that is the North cannot be ruled without taking the Nationalist population into account

    - quid pro quo to the other side too

    Marty's role in the IRA doesn't bother me

    - what bothers me is that he sent others (and maybe he did too) to kill the Soldiers of the Queen

    - and there he was sipping Tea with her...


    -
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 98 FirstFirst 12345 13 53 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment