# Martin McGuinness Has Died



## jo662 (Jul 27, 2010)

Martin McGuinness has died!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39185899


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Like many have said on hearing the news, they receive it with mixed feelings;

1. his early and violent life as a senior member of the IRA is indefensible and lead to much terror, pain and grief, BUT

2. his ability and willingness to switch from violence to democracy and the ballot box shows a rare characteristic and a very strong man.

He will be missed and of course, condolences to his family but without him it is unlikely that there would be any form of peace in Northern Ireland; he was able to work with and become friendly with the Rev. Ian Paisley - so we should all follow that example and respect his worth. 

I hope that the peace process will continue and that the current problems can and will be sorted rapidly.

RIP.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Penquin said:


> without him it is unlikely that there would be any form of peace in Northern Ireland; he was able to work with and become friendly with the Rev. Ian Paisley - so we should all follow that example and respect his worth.
> 
> I hope that the peace process will continue and that the current problems can and will be sorted rapidly.
> 
> RIP.


The need for a peace process would not have arisen were it not for many of his actions when he was the leader of the Provisional IRA. Think Omaha and Regents Park etc!

Sure he appeared to change his spots BUT his dark past should NEVER be forgotten.

Andy


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> The need for a peace process would not have arisen were it not for many of his actions when he was the leader of the Provisional IRA. Think Omaha and Regents Park etc!
> 
> Sure he appeared to change his spots BUT his dark past should NEVER be forgotten.
> 
> Andy


What happened at Omaha?


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

R I H Murderous bastard


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

At least he did a lot of good in his later life. I can appreciate that.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Ireland would have been in a worse place now I think without him.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Mrplodd said:


> The need for a peace process would not have arisen were it not for many of his actions when he was the leader of the Provisional IRA. Think Omaha and Regents Park etc!
> 
> Sure he appeared to change his spots BUT his dark past should NEVER be forgotten.
> 
> Andy


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, think you mean Omagh, a bombing attributed to the Real IRA not the Provos.

He was certainly a hard man, but there again only a hard man could have brought the Provos to a peace agreement and participation in a Stormont Assembly.

I deplore his violent past but he was responsible for my kids and grandchildren growing up in a safer place than I did, and for that I'm grateful.

Terry


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

erneboy said:


> What happened at Omaha?


Bloody auto correct, what was meant (and I am sure you were well aware) was Omagh

Andy

Never EVER forget what he did in order to get where he eventually ended up, he used violence of an extreme nature to achieve HIS aims at the cost of many innocent lives and that cannot ever be allowed to be forgotten.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

And in your version of the history of NI how was he involved in the Omagh bombing?

Perhaps it would help if you were to brush up on that history before answering.


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

Good riddance to an evil bastard! May he spend eternity burning in hell.


----------



## nickoff (Oct 11, 2005)

I just wish his bearded mate had gone with him.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Strange I don't remember all this fuss when Paisley died.
I seem to recall he never condemned Loyalist attrocities.

But then of course to the usual suspects there was only one "bad" side, because the other side were waving Union Flags.

If he does have a nice warm seat now, I hope he saves a space for Tebbitt whilst chatting to Maggie.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

I have my own views about him, however as I am not informed fully of all that transpired through his actions, be they good or bad I have to refrain.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

I suppose it all depends upon how those views are moulded. By actually reading a variety of sources on the background to the "Troubles" and how ALL the parties involved behaved during them or just by believing everything written in the likes of the Daily Mail. 
I don't think McGuinness ever sunk to the level of shooting at a priest who was carrying a white flag and trying to rescue an unarmed civilian who had been shot.

http://www.thejournal.ie/bloody-sunday-edward-daly-2915627-Aug2016/


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Of course no-one has mentioned Bloody Sunday yet and the atrocities that appear to have happened that day......

There could never be a "Victory" no guerrilla campaign has ever been defeated by military means alone AFAIK. It is only by talking that such things can and will be addressed. 

His violent upbringing was a product of the times and the place, fortunately he recognised an alternative route forwards, the ONLY alternative route forwards and tried to set his actions of the past behind him. He had sufficient respect from the others involved in the terrorist organisation to be able to follow that alternative route. His arch critic Paisley recognised him for the steps forward that he had made, dragging others kicking and screaming behind him. Paisley was able to establish a good working relationship with him - built out of mutual respect.

There will never be total agreement about what happened or why, but we must learn from history and not let it rule every step we make and every thought that we have. If not we will be back in the age of violent conflict in very many areas. The tolerance for others is surely an over-riding characteristic of Britain, sadly somewhat strained of late with too may verbal and physical attacks on others from a different background.

His past should NEVER be forgotten, but the way that he moved forward MUST be respected and possibly held up as a role model for others to follow......

Dave


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Penquin said:


> Of course no-one has mentioned Bloody Sunday yet and the atrocities that appear to have happened that day......
> 
> ......
> 
> Dave


Stanner alludes to it, but as he points out what happened on that day somehow seems to have been alright with the haters who've posted on this thread.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm surprised he hasn't been bloody awarded with a sainthood by now

May the bearded jackass follow soon :serious:


----------



## Jamsieboy (Jan 14, 2011)

Well it is easy to point to the work of MM as part of the IRA.
He deserves a lot of credit for making the peace process work despite his past.
Few outside Ireland understand the long history that created the IRA and also the Protestant paramilitary groups or indeed the actions of the British (English) Army going back over a century.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I don't think I've heard a single commentator or any contributor on here suggest that he was in any way saintly Tony. 

Just out of interest why don't you tell us how you think things in NI would look now if he and Adams hadn't decided that talking was the best option. I'd absolutely fascinated to hear your view on that. Or indeed those of any of the others who've expressed nothing but hate. 

At least MM finally learned that hate was the road to nowhere and was in a position to bring many other terrorists round to that view.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Tactics used by the IRA and ISIS identical................go for the 'pussy' targets , blow up horses and kids, don't forget nightclubs..........................no matter how many hail marys he says................he's damned for eternity

EVIL BASTERD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

It is beyond doubt that he and Adams did indeed become closely involved in the peace process BUT that process only came about AFTER the pair of them had actively been involved in, and promoted terrorism for many many years. 

It is also beyond doubt that the security forces became involved in some questionable actions BUT would they have done that if the IRA (all factions) had not been bombing/shooting/kneecapping people for many years??

Basically because they (McGuiness and Adams) didn't like the way things were they decided it was acceptable to become involved in terrorism and all of the deaths that involved in order to get their own way. AND once they got their own way to take the "high ground" and become politicians. 

I for one wonder what would have happened to the pair of them IF the "peace process" hadn't started when it did. I suspect lengthy custodial sentences might have been involved (but could of course be wrong)

I am also aware of the comments of Ian Paisley's son and accept 100% that he has infinitely more knowledge about McGuiness than I will ever have. 

How many would have been happy to see McGuiness appointed as a senior politician in the Westminster government, say deputy prime minister or Home Secretary.

I think I can forgive him, but I am NOT prepared to EVER forget what he did PRIOR to the Good Friday agreement.

Andy


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

So much anger and so much bitterness from the usual suspects.......................changing avatars clearly changes nothing.

I wonder how they would channel such feelings if put in the same situation........................or offered the opportunity to kill those they define as evil basterds.

Don't you understand it is exactly that degree of absolute black and white views and hatred for those defined as "the enemy" that created the troubles in the first place.

And don't get me started on that Nelson Mandela bloke.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

I take it then that you are not one of those PC Luvvies then.:grin2::grin2:


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

GEMMY said:


> Tactics used by the IRA and ISIS identical................go for the 'pussy' targets , blow up horses and kids, don't forget nightclubs..........................no matter how many hail marys he says................he's damned for eternity
> 
> EVIL BASTERD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What were the tactics used by 1 Para?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

_
The casualties are listed in the order in which they were killed.

*John 'Jackie' Duddy*, age 17. *Shot as he ran away* from soldiers in the car park of Rossville Flats. The bullet struck him in the shoulder and entered his chest. Three witnesses said they saw a soldier take deliberate aim at the youth as he ran. He was the first fatality on Bloody Sunday. Like Saville, Widgery also concluded that *Duddy was unarmed*. His nephew is boxer John Duddy.

*Michael Kelly*, age 17. *Shot in the stomach *while standing at the rubble barricade on Rossville Street. Both Saville and Widgery concluded that *Kelly was unarmed.*

*Hugh Gilmour, *age 17. *Shot as he ran away* from soldiers near the rubble barricade. The bullet went through his left elbow and entered his chest. Widgery acknowledged that a photograph taken seconds after Gilmour was hit corroborated witness reports that *he was unarmed*, and that tests for *gunshot residue were negative.*

*William Nash*, age 19. *Shot in the chest *at the rubble barricade. Witnesses stated *Nash was unarmed*. *Three people were shot while apparently going to his aid*, including his father Alexander Nash.

*John Young*, age 17. *Shot in the face* at the rubble barricade, apparently while crouching and *going to the aid of William Nash*. Two witnesses stated *Young was unarmed*.

*Michael McDaid*, age 20. *Shot in the face* at the rubble barricade, apparently while crouching and *going to the aid of William Nash*.

*Kevin McElhinney*, age 17. *Shot from behind*, near the rubble barricade, while attempting to crawl to safety. Two witnesses stated *McElhinney was unarmed*.

*James 'Jim' Wray*, age 22. *Shot in the back while running away* from soldiers in Glenfada Park courtyard. *He was then shot again in the back as he lay mortally wounded* on the ground. Witnesses, who were not called to the Widgery Tribunal, stated that Wray was calling out that he could not move his legs before he was shot the second time.

*William McKinney*, age 26. *Shot in the back* as he attempted to flee through Glenfada Park courtyard.

*Gerard McKinney*, age 35. *Shot in the chest *at Abbey Park. A soldier ran through an alleyway from Glenfada Park and shot him from a few yards away. Witnesses said that when he saw the soldier, *McKinney stopped and held up his arms*, shouting "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!", before being shot. The bullet apparently went through his body and struck Gerard Donaghy behind him.

*Gerard Donaghy*, age 17. Shot in the stomach at Abbey Park *while standing behind Gerard McKinney*. Both were apparently struck by the same bullet. Bystanders brought Donaghy to a nearby house, where he was examined by a doctor. *The doctor opened Donaghy's clothes to examine him, and his pockets were also searched for identification*. Two bystanders then attempted to drive Donaghy to hospital, but the car was stopped at an Army checkpoint. They were ordered to leave the car and a soldier drove it to a Regimental Aid Post, where an Army medical officer pronounced Donaghy dead. Shortly after, soldiers found four nail bombs in his pockets. *The civilians who searched him, the soldier who drove him to the Army post, and the Army medical officer, all said that they did not see any bombs*. This led to claims that soldiers planted the bombs on Donaghy to justify the killings. Donaghy was a member of Fianna Éireann, an IRA-linked republican youth movement. Paddy Ward, a police informer who gave evidence at the Saville Inquiry, claimed he gave two nail bombs to Donaghy several hours before he was shot.[60] The Saville Report concluded that the bombs were probably in Donaghy's pockets when he was shot. However, it concluded that he was not about to throw a bomb when he was shot; and that he was not shot because he had bombs. "He was shot while trying to escape from the soldiers".

*Patrick Doherty*, age 31. *Shot from behind* while attempting to crawl to safety in the forecourt of Rossville Flats. He was shot by soldiers who came out of Glenfada Park. Doherty was photographed, moments before and after he died, by French journalist Gilles Peress. Despite testimony from "Soldier F" that he had shot a man holding a pistol, Widgery acknowledged that the photographs show *Doherty was unarmed, and that forensic tests on his hands for gunshot residue proved negative*.

*Bernard 'Barney' McGuigan*, age 41. *Shot in the head* when he walked out from cover to help Patrick Doherty. *He had been waving a white handkerchief *to indicate his peaceful intentions.

*John Johnston*, age 59. *Shot in the leg and left shoulder *on William Street 15 minutes before the rest of the shooting started. *Johnston was not on the march*, but on his way to visit a friend in Glenfada Park. He died on 16 June 1972; his death has been attributed to the injuries he received on the day. He was the only one not to die immediately or soon after being shot._

To me that raises questions...... I am making no conclusions about it, the extract is from Wikipedia but does seem to quote fairly from the Inquiries held since. Sadly there is at least one comment about shooting an already injured person (James Wray) which is redolent of what happened in Afghanistan wit the Royal Marine Sergeant, Alexander Blackman, who was initially convicted of murder, now downgraded to manslaughter on Appeal who fatally shot a seriously injured Taliban fighter.

Is that a tactic that has been agreed? I would be very surprised if that has EVER been an "approved" tactic but probably happened solely as a result of the stress of the situation - something I can understand even if it is not acceptable to society including myself.


----------



## caulkhead (Jul 25, 2007)

Webby1 said:


> So much anger and so much bitterness from the usual suspects.......................changing avatars clearly changes nothing.
> 
> And don't get me started on that Nelson Mandela bloke.


You beat me to it Webby! Yesterday's terrorist is today's popular hero. We were best mates with Sadam once upon a time, and countless others of course.

Only those who lived through the 'troubles' have a view worth listening to in my opinion.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It would be very generous to forgive him Andy. I can't and won't, but I do appreciate his efforts towards peace and the progress that's been made. Without him and Adams it wouldn't have been possible.

Not going to answer my question then Tony? I thought not.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

No I'm proud to be a tree hugging, leftie liberal.....................what a load of nonsense.................................it's non PC attitudes gone mad.

Which actual part of my post do you dismiss as PC luvvie........................arguing against "hatred and bitterness"......................... arguing against the anger and bitterness 

that created the Troubles and continue to feed terrorism everywhere.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

But would the peace process have even been necessary if McG and Adams had, at the outset, advocated PEACEFUL means of bringing about what they wanted rather than sanctioning bombs/bullets etc??

I accept that Bloody Sunday was a bloody disgrace/outrage but look at what had led up to it. Had the IRA involved themselves in peaceful dialogue Bloody Sunday would never have happened.

I for one will always feel that the pair of them should have been locked up for the evil individuals they ONCE WERE

Andy


----------



## iandsm (May 18, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> Bloody auto correct, what was meant (and I am sure you were well aware) was Omagh
> 
> Andy
> 
> Never EVER forget what he did in order to get where he eventually ended up, he used violence of an extreme nature to achieve HIS aims at the cost of many innocent lives and that cannot ever be allowed to be forgotten.


and he never acknowledged or apologised for any of his deeds as I understand it from the media.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

to me it is wrong that the IRA and other terrorists have been given some form of immunity from prosecution whereas the army have not.....

BOTH sides should be treated equally, we cannot turn the clock back, but you are correct if the violence had not been started then NONE of the atrocities would have occurred.....

Dave


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> But would the peace process have even been necessary if McG and Adams had, at the outset, advocated PEACEFUL means of bringing about what they wanted rather than sanctioning bombs/bullets etc??
> 
> I accept that Bloody Sunday was a bloody disgrace/outrage but look at what had led up to it. Had the IRA involved themselves in peaceful dialogue Bloody Sunday would never have happened.
> 
> ...


Please read some history. They just joined in. If not them there were plenty of others.


----------



## caulkhead (Jul 25, 2007)

Penquin said:


> to me it is wrong that the IRA and other terrorists have been given some form of immunity from prosecution whereas the army have not.....
> 
> BOTH sides should be treated equally, we cannot turn the clock back, but you are correct if the violence had not been started then NONE of the atrocities would have occurred.....
> 
> Dave


Why did the violence start Dave? Derry in the 60's (where McGuiness grew up) was a place where Catholics were discriminated against and where human rights marches were often cracked down on by the authorities with force. Let's face it, we (the English) don't have a great track record where Ireland is concerned.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

No terrorist has been granted immunity.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

That source has it wrong. Who belives Russia Today ffs

I'm out at the moment but will link to the judgment on the Downey (from memory) case which was where the scope and validity of the letters was tested.

Here. Found it. No terrorist was granted immunity.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/wms-high-court-judgment-on-downey-case


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I am not going to argue, but simply withdraw, I only know what I have believed. You obviously do not


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I've given you the information from the then Secretary of State for NI which tells you what happened. Using that information you can find the judgment in full, which I've posted on here at least twice before in order to show that no terrorist was ever granted immunity. Can you find any authoritative document that confirms your contention?


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Penquin said:


> I am not going to argue, but simply withdraw, I only know what I have believed. You obviously do not


FAKE NEWS travels farther and faster than fact, no need to argue with Alan Dave, as I mentioned in an earlier post "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" especially in conjunction with Irish politics. :surprise:

Terry


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Thanks Terry. I do wish people would just read the authoritative sources to find the facts on matters of historical fact. 

I'm open to learning so if I post something as a matter of historical fact which they can disprove by reference to a more compelling source I'd be eager to read it and learn from it.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Not an argument, the reason why I chose that is that it was the clearest of many, many similar links

Google page with the results that I used to try to explain



erneboy said:


> That source has it wrong. Who belives Russia Today ffs
> 
> I'm out at the moment but will link to the judgment on the Downey (from memory) case which was where the scope and validity of the letters was tested.
> 
> ...


but the comment about "ffs" was out of order IMO hence why I deleted the post.

The letters were sent before 2010 and really became public in 2014 when the Court was asked about them. They were still being sent apparently even after the formation of the coalition in 2010 according to this page;

A deal between the party and Tony Blair's government was reached and fugitives began receiving the secret "get out of jail letters" - notes that it has emerged continued to be sent after the coalition took office in 2010.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/27/ira-letters-good-friday-agreement-northern-ireland


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Your link leads to google. fr search page. 

I'm aware of the timing of the deal and I think it was a shoddy secret but that's not relevant. It didn't confer immunity. 

I've given you authoritative links which demonstrate that no terrorist was granted immunity. I'm open to correction if you can provide better evidence that terrorists have been granted immunity and what's more I'll be happy to learn if I'm wrong. 

Did you know that rt was Russia Today when you linked to it? If you did why did you use it? 

FFS is innocuous, as you know. It's an expression of incredulity.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

no I did not know it was Russia Today.

I am not surprised it links to Google.fr funnily enough....... if you open it does it come up in English? It is for me and I do not ask for a translation but access via Google.uk

curious but possibly not surprising it is not easy to get it to accept Google.uk as a Home page


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

Immunity for the Paras the representatives of the British state ??????????? What are you talking about

Terrorists do what they do from their weak position ...................but no excuses

However, when paid and trained professionals of the British state, be they police or army. are brought into action we have the right to demand the 

highest standards of professional behaviour no matter what the provocation............and I hope they would expect it of themselves.

There will always be exceptional circumstances, but is there anyone of the "non PC brigade gone mad" who wants to argue for the army or police to 

have lesser standards than terrorists.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Just to lay this immunity for terrorists nonsense to rest here's some more information all of which is in the public domain and can be obtained from British Government sources.

When the news of the collapse of the Downey case broke it caused a crisis in NI because it was represented as immunity for terrorists by the tabloids. The then First Minister, Peter Robinson questioned what had taken place and made it clear that if it was immunity, as it had been reported, that his party, the Democratic Unionist Party would withdraw from the power sharing executive. It took a number of days and many questions and answers from him and his party to be satisfied that the immunity claim was inaccurate, but eventually he accepted that it was not immunity. 

He and his party were unhappy about what had happened, as were many of us. It was a shoddy and ill advised deal, done in secret, between Sinn Fein and the UK Government.

It did not confer immunity and if you think about it as Sinn Fein asked for assurances that this or that person was not currently wanted by UK law enforcement agencies they were actually naming, confirming/handing over the names of those they thought would top the most wanted in NI list to the Government. God alone can guess why Sinn Fein wanted to do that, though I don't think the Government should have joined in I can readily appreciate that the spooks and cops might have welcomed the arrival of a list naming all those they should be looking to convict for historical crimes. The last bit is a guess on my part. But there's no doubt that the letters were only valid up to the date on which they were written and they made it clear that if new evidence came to light further investigation might lead to prosecutions.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Penquin said:


> no I did not know it was Russia Today.
> 
> I am not surprised it links to Google.fr funnily enough....... if you open it does it come up in English? It is for me and I do not ask for a translation but access via Google.uk
> 
> curious but possibly not surprising it is not easy to get it to accept Google.uk as a Home page


It opened a Google.fr search page for me, there were no results or links, just the front page and since I didn't know what search terms you'd used it wasn't much help. Perhaps it was because I was on my phone at the time. I'll try again now.

Dave, here's the thing. Why not read the links I've given you and see why I say that immunity wasn't granted to any terrorists nor was it intended that it should be.

I will, if I must find the transcript of the Downey case where it's all laid out very laboriously.

If you can show that immunity was granted by reference to more authoritative sources I will immediately agree that you are right and will be pleased to have learned something I didn't know.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

As I said before I am not trying to continue an argument, far from it. So let it die,

for information only and I am curious about whether it opens in English or French as for me it is in English, this is the full link, not using the replacement technique of this forum;

https://www.google.fr/webhp?sourcei...2&ie=UTF-8#q=ira+protected+from+prosecution&*

as you can see (I hope) the search filters are; ira+protected+from+prosecution

I am not trying to continue simply trying to find out what you can see

Fiddlesticks, the forum here cuts the url in half, so I will try in two halves....;

https://www.google.fr/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion

=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ira+protected+from+prosecution&*

when it is all joined up that hopefully shows the page url...... hopefully


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Not long now, they usually set the dogs on rabbits at Easter...............:wink2:

Hippity hop hippity hop

I'm not immune to snide remarks, not very subtle :wink2:


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Right Dave, it did open that time. You got the results you searched for. What did you expect with this search term "ira protected from prosecution"?

Though if you looked on down the list a bit you'd have found articles debunking the claim.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Who just a few years ago could ever have imagined this picture? And if the Queen thought his hand was worth shaking then that's good enough for me. If I had latterly had the opportunity to do so I would have done it as well.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

all dated after 2014, whereas earlier that was what was being said. 

Is it necessary to continue this?

I really am getting fed up trying to defend things, if you want to "win" so be it.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Penquin said:


> all dated after 2014, whereas earlier that was what was being said.
> 
> Is it necessary to continue this?
> 
> I really am getting fed up trying to defend things, if you want to "win" so be it.


That's not playing ping pong is it :wink2:

tony


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Any of you are welcome to produce any authoritative evidence that NI terrorists were granted immunity. You can't I suspect, because it didn't happen and consequently there's no evidence of it. Why is that unacceptable to some of you?


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Penquin said:


> all dated after 2014, whereas earlier that was what was being said.
> 
> That is the problem Dave, just because it was being said doesn't make it true.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

All of this does not negate the fact that MM was the recognised (and self confessed) leader of a seriously evil terrorist organisation that used extreme brutality against anyone they SUSPECTED of not being on "their" side. They also planted bombs that killed many innocent people (Lord Mountbatten being just one of many hundreds) to further THEIR aims. 

As the leader of the IRA MM must have been fully aware of (and more than likely sanctioned/ordered) the murders/bombings/kneecapping/tar & feathering' that took place. It is "suggested' (but not proven!) that he actually carried out many of them himself. (Which I would view as more than likely true but NOT proven) He was very clearly in favour of using extreme violence against ANYONE opposed to HIS aims. 

How would society treat an organisation that resorted to IRA tactics in an attempt to say prevent Scottish independence? Many feel very strongly about it because it has devided a nation! (I am NOT serious, just trying to make a point about using violence to further a particular desire. 

Whatever he did/achieved AFTER the Good Friday agreement cannot and should not EVER be used as any form of justification/excuse for what he was heavily involved in before it. 

I don't think ANYONE believes he wasn't (at one time) one of the nastiest human beings to have lived in the last 50 years, he may well have assisted greatly in the peace process BUT that doesn't alter the fact he is now DEAD. I will not be shedding a single tear for him. 

Andy


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> All of this does not negate the fact that MM was the recognised (and self confessed) leader of a seriously evil terrorist organisation that used extreme brutality against anyone they SUSPECTED of not being on "their" side. They also planted bombs that killed many innocent people (Lord Mountbatten being just one of many hundreds) to further THEIR aims.
> 
> As the leader of the IRA MM must have been fully aware of (and more than likely sanctioned/ordered) the murders/bombings/kneecapping/tar & feathering' that took place. It is "suggested' (but not proven!) that he actually carried out many of them himself. (Which I would view as more than likely true but NOT proven) He was very clearly in favour of using extreme violence against ANYONE opposed to HIS aims.
> 
> ...


 As has been said on numerous occasions one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If we were taught history truthfully at school I think a lot more people would have viewed this man as a symbol of the frustrations of the Irish people. As history was and still isn't taught as it should be we will just churn out brainwashed angry people.......isn't that right Mrplod? :smile2:


----------



## Joeo's (Dec 11, 2016)

Mrplodd said:


> It is beyond doubt that he and Adams did indeed become closely involved in the peace process BUT that process only came about AFTER the pair of them had actively been involved in, and promoted terrorism for many many years.
> 
> It is also beyond doubt that the security forces became involved in some questionable actions BUT would they have done that if the IRA (all factions) had not been bombing/shooting/kneecapping people for many years?
> 
> Andy


Where does responsibility for violence lie in Irish History?
Was it when one bigger country invaded a smaller one and crushed it's people, culture, language, religion and economy?
Was it when the visitor confiscated all the good land and gifted it to it's nobility?
Was it when the Irish population was banished to the bogs and mountains and forced to pay extortionist rents from the most meagre
resources, for using their own land, at the point of a sword?

Was it when the visitor turned it's back on the starving local when the Famine caused the potato crop to fail (potato blight disease)?
Was it when the "natives" began to resist with rocks and forks?

Was it in 1916 when workers held a mini rebellion in Dublin or was it the British response created martyrs that changed the course of history?

Was it when a single girl of nineteen years of age (of a certain religion), was provided with a council house before a family of seven, who happened to be of a different religion?
Was it when the people marched peacefully demanding equality of treatment under the law (the Civil Rights Marches) or was it when the British Army opened fire on one of these marches (Bloody Sunday)?

Was it the killing of innocent soldiers just doing their job on the street of NI?
Was it the bombing in Belfast, Omagh, Enniskillen, Dublin, London, Warrington etc. etc.?
Was it the many authorities carried out against both communities for no justifiable reason?

History provides us with opportunities to ta take one side or another. The side we take is informed, principally, by the geographical location of our birth, just in the same way as it largely defines our religion.

Who was right and who was wrong?

Love him or hate him McGuinness choose a path of peace and tried to reconcile the two communities, more than any other person in history. Without Hume and subsequently McGuinness, along with others, including the two Governments, some Unionist and Loyalist leaders, it is likely that very many more people would have died in NI, Republic if Irl and in Britain during the past 25 years. 
Objective observers (Clinton, George Mitchell, Blair, Ahern and others) believe the piece process could not have happened without him. He brought "his side" along a path that appeared impossible and was partly successful in bridging the gap in trust between the two communities.

Let us all hope that it continues and that the 2 communities can form a devolved government that represents everyone and is fair to all, for the sake of the children and the next generations on these two small islands in the Atlantic.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Presumably it is also impossible for previous criminals, who may well have been jailed for their offences, to change their lives around too? In which case why have jails?

McGuinness was jailed admittedly only for 6 months for being a member of the IRA and for refusing to recognise the Court.

It certainly appears unlikely that he severed all links with the IRA after the prison sentence in spite of what he said.

BUT he did go on to "shake the hand of thousands of Unionists" when he shook the hand of the Queen. He also became an employee of the Crown when he was appointed as Steward of the Manor of Northstead when he resigned as an MP - and was appointed to that role by George Osborne in January 2013 after he resigned in line with his party's position on double-jobbing (c/w George Osborne's view?).

I am aware that he NEVER apologised for the violence with which he was inextricably linked, he was present at the Bloody Sunday events, probably holding a machine gun that may have been used to murder two policemen just days before. But there was insufficient evidence to charge him at the time with any offence.......

My concerns stem from an unwillingness to accept that people DO change and CAN change.

If that cannot be accepted then serving time in prison cannot achieve anything. I doubt that his short sentence caused a new personality to emerge, but maybe, just maybe it sowed seeds for a better future?

His past must NEVER be forgotten, but then that past includes the way that he worked for a much better solution than endless violence. He may well have a background of atrocity, but his recent history shows how he had shifted to the ballot box and condemned the continued violence followed by some. 

I have tried to check these points using newspaper articles (Daily Telegraph and Guardian) as well as Wikipedia, if I have misinterpreted or recorded them so be it. 

Perhaps I am willing to see "good" in everyone, maybe that is naive, maybe is is based on a forlorn hope, or may be it is just my wish to recognise humanity. IMO it is too easy to allow grief, anger and hatred to destroy yourself and achieve nothing else.

Dave


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Joeo's said:


> Where does responsibility for violence lie in Irish History?
> Was it when one bigger country invaded a smaller one and crushed it's people, culture, language, religion and economy?
> Was it when the visitor confiscated all the good land and gifted it to it's nobility?
> Was it when the Irish population was banished to the bogs and mountains and forced to pay extortionist rents from the most meagre
> ...


Well said Joeo's, like a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

> Well said Joeo's, like a breath of fresh air.


Absolutely agree and you have put a lot of work into collecting your evidence. Like the full list of people killed on Bloody Sunday provided by another poster.

I see you are relatively new here and therefore believe that the weight of historical evidence and facts will outweigh ignorance and the prejudice that it feeds.

I genuinely ask some of the posters here to examine the history of Ireland and tell me what you would have done as a Catholic in Derry in the 1960's ???


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Webby1 said:


> I genuinely ask some of the posters here to examine the history of Ireland and tell me what you would have done as a Catholic in Derry in the 1960's ???


I do not know enough about the history of Ireland as it goes back a VERY long way as has already been pointed out; land grabs, potato famine, Dublin Post Office and so on.

I hope that I would *not* resort to violence as that is *not* my nature, *BUT* that does not mean that I cannot understand the frustration of being ignored for generations and oppressed in ways that are unacceptable.

My life has always been directed at saving life rather than violence - hence why I ran an "alternative activity" for 20+ years in my school for those that did not wish to join the School CCF. I was happy to support the CCF but not become an officer in it, even though by so doing I would have been paid as a regular services officer at the standard day rate for an officer of that rank - by the time I left I would undoubtedly have been running the CCF within the school and picking up several hundred £ for the day's work with the CCF...... so, yes my stance has effectively cost me financially.......

I am not a fan of violence and never have been and am unlikely to ever be in the future.......

Dave


----------



## Matchlock (Jun 26, 2010)

Webby1 said:


> I genuinely ask some of the posters here to examine the history of Ireland and tell me what you would have done as a Catholic in Derry in the 1960's ???


I do not condone randomly murdering people just to prove a point! Cromwell was blamed for starting the troubles and although I do not agree with what he did do some research as to why he did it.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

As an old hippy (lefty, liberal, tree hugging scumbag) I have never been an advocate of violence. 

But sometimes as in N. Ireland or S.Africa what else is there to do.

Dave I do appreciate and value your clearly thought out responses.............................any others ?????


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Webby1

No matter what the "Cause" the indiscriminate killing of totally innocent people can NEVER EVER be justified. Or do YOU feel it can be??

THAT is exactly what the IRA did for many years and MM was a self confessed commander.

Inexcusable 

Andy


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my previous post about other atrocities.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

TWO wrongs do not make a right though do they?

Andy


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Totally agree with you on that, they certainly do not and never should I do not condone violence under any circumstances but there are times when it has to be used e.g outside Parliament earlier today to protect others. I do not believe that terrorism can ever be justified.

Dave


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

Penquin said:


> What were the tactics used by 1 Para?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
> 
> ...


And maybe just remind the few, if ill of us they speak, 
That we are all that stands between the monsters and the weak."


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

So Gemmy and Andy, clearly men of action and not softy liberals like me.

My question still stands................Catholic in Northern Ireland...................black in South Africa........................WHAT are you going to do

Not to excuse anything, but to understand or to explain........................why Martin McGuinness is......... well actually more like you guys than like me.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Webby1 said:


> So Gemmy and Andy, clearly men of action and not softy liberals like me.
> 
> My question still stands................Catholic in Northern Ireland...................black in South Africa........................WHAT are you going to do
> 
> Not to excuse anything, but to understand or to explain........................why Martin McGuinness is......... well actually more like you guys than like me.


As you've admitted you're " an old hippy (lefty, liberal, tree hugging scumbag)" why would I bother :serious:


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Spacerunner said:


> And maybe just remind the few, if ill of us they speak,
> That we are all that stands between the monsters and the weak."


O just saw that on FB, so thought I would admit where it came from....








[/URL][/IMG]

Or tell the masses (and this will feed the ISIS fire superbly) that even the "civilised" British do not follow the "rules" of the Geneva Convention so their response will be; "weaklings we will continue to execute when we encounter because we are not soft".

Surely we should hold the high ground? Not sink into the abyss......


----------



## MeFeinMcCabe (Mar 28, 2009)

Below is the earliest (and perhaps the most illuminating) profile of Martin McGuinness, written by Nell McCafferty and published in The Irish Times on 19th April 1972, within weeks of Bloody Sunday. Entitled, ‘Martin McGuinness: Profile of a Provo‘. Given all that is being said following his recent death, it is fascinating to read as it gives a sense of what is missing in the overall commentary, namely, what motivated him to join the IRA.

Firstly, though, an earlier mention of Martin McGuinness in the press. Back in October 1969, he was arrested and brought to court following a confrontation with British soldiers in Derry. The Irish Times reported: “Martin McGuinness (19), of Elmwood street, Derry, was fined £50 for disorderly behaviour on last Saturday at Strand road. Head Constable Campbell said the troops had moved a crowd of about 200 along Strand road. A sergeant had noticed four or five youths, including defendant, shouting, abusive remarks. The troops were ordered over the barrier and the sergeant caught McGuinness.”

McG 1969

He first spoke in public as a republican leader in April 1972, which is what prompted Nell McCafferty’s profile of him, which I have reproduced below. If you are unfamiliar with the chronology of events, a useful resource, the Conflict Archive, is here.

Martin McGuinness: Profile of a Provo by Nell McCafferty

“You know how much life has changed when you’re having a Republicans tea – a bottle of orange and a bap – in the back of a car, just a few minutes from your own home.” Martin McGuinness, the 21-year-old O.C. of the Derry Provisional I.R.A., may have changed his life-style, but he is acutely embarrassed at popular press descriptions of him as ‘the boy who rules Free Derry’. He was catapulted into the limelight at a press conference in the Creggan estate last week, and since then the English papers have had a hey day writing about his ‘good looks, youth and shy charm.’ An American TV man spent a wistful hour planning the scenario for a colour-film spectacular about him. “Jeez,” he said, “that boy would be hot on the coast. Can you see him, six feet tall in a dinner jacket, raising funds.” His wish will presumably not be granted. The English journalist who romanticised Mr. McGuinness was ordered out of town. He left immediately.

“I don’t feel like a big-shot, travelling around the area in a stolen Ford Avenger,” said Martin. “I have to do what the people want. They don’t treat me like I was something different. In fact one wee woman couldn’t understand why I couldn’t go down the barracks to bail out her son who’d been arrested. I had to take her up to headquarters and arrange for someone else to do it.”

He joined the I.R.A. after the Battle of Bogside, 1969. Initially he was with the Official wing. “There was not a Provo unit in Derry then. The Officials approached me and for three months we attended policy and training lectures in a house in the Bogside. But they wouldn’t give us any action. All this time, there was fighting in the streets and things were getting worse in Belfast. You could see the soldiers just settling into Derry, not being too worried about the stone-throwing. Occasionally, the Officials gave out Molotov cocktails, which wouldn’t even go off, and I knew that after 50 years we were more of an occupied country than we ever were.

“It seemed to me that behind all the politics and marching, it was plain as daylight that there was an army in our town, in our country and that they weren’t there to give out flowers. Armies should be fought by armies. So one night I piled into a black Austin, me and five mates and we went to see a Provo across the Border. We told him our position and there were several meetings after that. Then we joined. Nothing really happened until Seamus Cusack was killed, and internment came soon after. Then the Provos in Derry were ordered into full-time military action. I have up my job working in the butcher’s shop.”

His mother was panic-stricken, he said, when she found out he was in the IRA. “A few months after I’d joined, she found a belt and beret in my bedroom and there was a big row. She and my father told me to get out of it, and for the sake of peace I said I would and they calmed down. But now they have to accept it. They’ve seen the British Army in action and they know I’d no choice.” His mother, though, had started smoking again, which she hadn’t done in years. “I know her health has failed, and she’s always worrying about me. If I’m not around to tell her myself, I send her words that I’m alright. I don’t discuss my business with her, and she doesn’t ask.”

Martin’s mother was angry at the press reports of him. “You’d think he was running around the area with a gun, telling people what they could and could not do. The only time I saw guns in this house was when the British Army raided it.” She worries about him even more since Joseph McCann was shot in Belfast. “Since Martin’s picture appeared in the papers, every soldier in Derry knows what he looks like.” And when it’s all over – should it ever end – she worries about his job. “His trade’s been interrupted. His father is a welder, his brothers are at the bricklaying and carpentering, but what will become of Martin? That’s why they’ll have to get an amnesty, so’s he can get back to work, and not be always on the run.”

Martin himself doesn’t worry too much about what will come after. His aims are devastatingly simple. “I want a United Ireland where everyone has a good job and enough to live on.” He had read a little, he said, since becoming a Republican, and supported Socialist views, “but the Officials are all views and no support. I wish we were getting more press coverage in derry for our political beliefs but we don’t have the talkers in our ranks. Still, the people support us, and that’s good enough.”

He wondered sometimes, he said, if Socialism would ever work out. “I have a lot of respect for Bernadette Devlin, but I think maybe people are too greedy. I’d be willing to sweep the roads in my world and it wouldn’t seem like a bad job if they got the same wages as everybody else, but do you not think now that people are just too greedy. Somebody always wants to make a million. Anyway, before you can try, you have to get this country united.

“We’d make sure that protestants are fairly treated. I don’t accept that we are sectarian. But you have to face facts that it’s the Catholics who’ve been discriminated against. The Officials go on about us all the time, but was them that blew up the Protestant mayor’s house in Derry and shot Barnhill and John Taylor. Mind you, I’ve nothing against the rank-and-file officials. They’re soldiers, just like me, with a job do. That job, as far as I am concerned, is to fight the British Army.”

The Provisionals took care, he said, not to harm innocent civilians. “But sometimes mistakes are made. There was an explosion in Derry some time ago and I read afterwards that a man had been trapped in the basement. He lost a part of his leg. Then you read that he’s a cyclist and you feel sad. The worst I ever felt was Bloody Sunday. I wandered about stunned, with people crying and looking for their relatives, and I thought of all that about honour between soldiers. The British Army knew right well we wouldn’t fight them with all those thousands of people there, so they came in and murdered the innocent.

“I used to worry about being killed before that day, but now I don’t think about death at all.”

If there’s a riot on, he sometimes goes and throws stones. “It relieves the pressure, and it’s a way of being with my mates, the ones who have not joined the movement, and I feel just ordinary again.”

“I suppose,” he added, “you think us Provos have no feelings at all, just because we have no time to talk about it.”

Last week he talked publicly, for the first time. His speech, to a wildly cheering crowd in the Brandywell, was very short and to the point. “If Gerry Fitt and John Hume think they are going to sell the people out,” he said, “they’ve got anything thing coming. It’s just not on.” He looked very young as he spoke. He was probably not what Austin Currie had in mind, last autumn, when he warned the people that the possible imprisonment of MPs would create a need for a ‘second-tier leadership’. But the influential, middle-aged, middle-of-the-road Derry Centre Citizens Council took sufficient cognisance of this leadership to go and have a talk with him about his ideas. Afterwards they rejected the Provisionals proposals for elections in the city. Martin didn’t mind too much.

“I know they’re wrong,” he said. “I know it and I feel it when I go round the barricades and see the boys they called hooligans and the men they called wasters, and the fellows that used only to drink, doing things now they really believe in. Protecting the area, and freeing Ireland and freeing themselves.”


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Thanks for posting that, as you said, an illuminating account, I wonder how and when his thoughts changed to follow a less violent route?


----------



## jiwawa (Jun 22, 2007)

Penquin said:


> Thanks for posting that, as you said, an illuminating account, I wonder how and when his thoughts changed to follow a less violent route?


I'm reading this bit "The Provisionals took care, he said, not to harm innocent civilians." andwondering how and when his thoughts changed to follow a _*more *_violent route?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

We will never know and I think many (edit; if not most) people would question that statement as accurate anyway....

Enniskillen 1987?






Dave


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Penquin said:


> We will never know and I think many people would question that statement as accurate anyway....
> 
> Dave


Well I certainly question the statement, I still can see the vision of my Aunt in hospital with horrific burns after a bomb exploded in the Abercon Restaurant, being a waitress in a place full of diners made her a target. One of many innocent civilians deliberately targeted.

Even those like myself whose job required visits to Police Stations and Army camps had to be conscious of tageting as the Provos had look outs taking civilian vehicle registration numbers as you accessed the sites.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercorn_Restaurant_bombing

Terry


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

Of course it is dreadful and terrible BUT my question still stands as to what you would have done in those circumstances.......................... facing the oppression of

another group backed by the forces of the state as in Northern Ireland or South Africa.Very different from the idiot driving over Westminster Bridge.

And just as a reminder Andy don't tell me innocent people aren't regularly killed in the bombing raids in Syria etc etc. People just sitting in a coffee shop when a drone 

delivers a fatal strike in order to try to kill Abdul Enemy. But I agree sometimes it has to be done


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Webby1 said:


> Of course it is dreadful and terrible BUT my question still stands as to what you would have done in those circumstances.......................... facing the oppression of
> 
> another group backed by the forces of the state as in Northern Ireland or South Africa.Very different from the idiot driving over Westminster Bridge.
> 
> ...


What I most certainly and categorically would NOT have done would be to have planted bombs and killed others just because I felt aggrieved. Those are the tactics employed by bullies, and bullies are always cowards!!!!!

If MM felt his cause was that riiteous why did he not admit to everything he had done and allow himself to be judged by his peers for his actions?????

NOT MATTER WHAT the provocation was MM (and his thugs) actions can never ever be justified.

To the best of my knowledge Mandela was not involved in the wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter of totally innocent people so its unreasonable to link him the murdering bastard McGuinness who,was.

Andy


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Was anybody trying to justify it? I don't think so. I think they were trying to explain why young men could feel the need to take to violence. Understanding motives does not confer approval, nor does it mean that you think the perpetrator was justified in what he did. That's why The Police are so busy just now trying to find out all they can about what and who might have caused the Westminster attacker to have done what he did.

Not trying to understand would be negligent because it lends insight.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

FYI Mandela was on the list of terrorists until just before his death according to the USA.

There are some interesting comparisons that can be seen between Mandela and MM i this article 

This extract comes from Wikipedia;

_A Xhosa, Mandela was born in Mvezo to the Thembu royal family. He studied law at the University of Fort Hare and the University of the Witwatersrand before working as a lawyer in Johannesburg. There he became involved in anti-colonial and African nationalist politics, joining the ANC in 1943 and co-founding its Youth League in 1944. After the National Party's white-only government established apartheid-a system of racial segregation that privileged whites-he and the ANC committed themselves to its overthrow. Mandela was appointed President of the ANC's Transvaal branch, rising to prominence for his involvement in the 1952 Defiance Campaign and the 1955 Congress of the People. He was repeatedly arrested for seditious activities and was unsuccessfully prosecuted in the 1956 Treason Trial. Influenced by Marxism, he secretly joined the banned South African Communist Party (SACP). *Although initially committed to non-violent protest, in association with the SACP he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe in 1961 and led a sabotage campaign against the government. In 1962, he was arrested for conspiring to overthrow the state and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Rivonia Trial.*_

He was always thought to be a VERY complex figure with many labels, like MM he appeared to support violence and then changed to non-violent activity.....

Leading a sabotage campaign may not be thought of as extremist as murder and indiscriminate bombing but .....

Thatcher and Reagan both regarded him as a terrorist and it was Cameron who delivered an apology for her actions;

_In 2006, David Cameron apologised and denounced Thatcher's policies, saying she was wrong to have branded Mandela's African National Congress as 'terrorists' and to have opposed sanctions against the apartheid South Africa._

Huffington Post

so life is rarely simple once labels get applied to organisations and it can take a VERY log time before such labels are removed, meanwhile how can you talk to a "terrorist" organisation? Or who can you talk to?

Dave


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

> NOT MATTER WHAT the provocation was MM (and his thugs) actions can never ever be justified


You see it's very interesting and we go round and round about what THEY have done wrong that can never be justified and I really do understand the resistance to violence

(as a leftie liberal,scumbag hippie...............or something like that ?????????????)

But still the action men will not say...........what they would have done in similar circumstances and my my view is if you cannot offer a better alternative......

then how can you condemn..........................or think they are not people, just like you pushed to the limits.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Would you not agree that the(prov) ira was just a terrorist group, not an army that they claimed to be, fighting a war. They picked soft targets and then claimed they were pushed into a position where they had no choice.As for the unionists just a similar group.

Now that MM is dead what is the need to keep his name mentioned, they were afraid to talk when he was alive.

What can one do with NI.It is steeped in religious racism, is there a way for even better harmony.Maybe equality between the sexes would be a start. 

The above is an opinion based on articles read recently and in the past.I apologise if those items are incorrect.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Read some more articles and maybe a book or two then, and if you don't mind my asking, what is religious racism?


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

> Would you not agree that the(prov) ira was just a terrorist group, not an army that they claimed to be, fighting a war. They picked soft targets and then claimed they were pushed into a position where they had no choice.As for the unionists just a similar group.


SO what would YOU have done..........................what SHOULD they have done in their situation.

We go round and round on this.................offer an 18 year old in Derry in 1965 a different way for change................then I'll condemn his choice.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Webby1 said:


> SO what would YOU have done..........................what SHOULD they have done in their situation.
> 
> We go round and round on this.................offer an 18 year old in Derry in 1965 a different way for change................then I'll condemn his choice.


Will this bloody IRA terrorist apologist eff of to Londonderry where he will be welcomed back to the brotherhood


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Nothing more constructive to say? Run out of salient points? Or does the obvious truth hurt?


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Penquin said:


> Nothing more constructive to say? Run out of salient points? Or does the obvious truth hurt?


To whom are you referring?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

If the cap fits, wear it....


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Ah, I see :wink2:

Once again the EGO has spoken. you've lived such a closeted life. I spent years with 6 N I Catholic brickies and labourers who came to England to escape the troubles, they were scared ****less by the IRA who would kneecap or kill anyone that was not 100% behind them. Freedom fighters my arse...............just thugs and killers who aimed mainly at innocents. Where did you gain your intelligence from.........the schoolroom or the street


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The words of an expert;



GEMMY said:


> You are not EVEN worth replying to


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Penquin said:


> The words of an expert;


Truth hurts eh?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

No, because it is not the truth, you are just allowing your fertile imagination and your hang up about ego to rule your posts, to your detriment. You know ABSOLUTELY nothing about my background and I see no reason to give you any.......

You know about as much about Brexit, but that's another thread which your posts have remained unchanged on....


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Penquin said:


> No, because it is not the truth, you are just allowing your fertile imagination and your hang up about ego to rule your posts, to your detriment. You know ABSOLUTELY nothing about my background and I see no reason to give you any.......
> 
> You know about as much about Brexit, but that's another thread which your posts have remained unchanged on....


That's it..........keep the the indictments and others quiet :wink2:


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Hello schools out again, rough talk in the playground.

Erneboy, religious racism is what I call the hatred between Roman Catholics and Church of England.Am I incorrect in saying this exists.I am not reading more on this subject unless it talks about the way forward and I see no reason why it should not.

Wobby, yours is such an unusual style of posting that I wonder why.My answer is, was it his free choice.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The indictments stand, justifiably, the IRA were thugs and bullies who had no respect for anyone and threatened everyone - no argument with me on that.

They terrorised innocent people without warning as you said, if they did not support them and they defined "support".

There are still a very large number of unexplained disappearances of British Services personnel - probably tortured and executed by the IRA - no arguments on any of those points.

The British Army was taken into a situation that they should never have been put in, as usual without the weapons and equipment to cope - as has been demonstrated again and again that the LIONS are being directed by mice. I have no problem with the British Army, except where tings like Bloody Sunday occur - thankfully VERY uncommon c/w IRA atrocities like Eniskillen on Remembrance Sunday..... and the large amount of destruction they caused throughout Northern Ireland.

So do you disagree on any of those points?]
]
My statement about it not being the truth relates directly to your assertion about my background and learning things in the school room - that is NOT the truth but I see no reason to enlighten you, where my experience came from is irrelevant.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

If violence can never be justified then the blindingly obvious course of action is non violent, and that is the course of action I would have taken rather than murdering people on an industrial scale. 

I take it from your repeated questioning of what I would have done that you feel the violence perpetrated by the MM and his cohorts is understandable and WAS justifiable because they couldn't/wouldn't/didn't want to peruse their objectives by peaceful means. 

Please clarify YOUR position in an unequivocal manner as I have done. I have condemned the violence, will you ?

ANDY


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> If violence can never be justified then the blindingly obvious course of action is non violent, and that is the course of action I would have taken rather than murdering people on an industrial scale.
> 
> I take it from your repeated questioning of what I would have done that you feel the violence perpetrated by the MM and his cohorts is understandable and WAS justifiable because they couldn't/wouldn't/didn't want to peruse their objectives by peaceful means.
> 
> ...


 Does that mean you also condemn the thousands of Muslims we are killing with our bombs as well?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

and the thousands when we invaded Iraq?

the list is endless, violence is not the answer, the IRA sadly decided to use it and the outcome was violence from both sides of the argument. Fortunately in th end some common sense prevailed and a sort of peace has been established. How close it comes to breaking still depends upon the willingness of both sides to continue to talk and to make compromises and that is the hard thing to identify at present. One side seems to be unwilling to criticise their leader or to condone a plan of action that seems, to me, to make sense;

If Foster stepped down while the inquiry was conducted surely that has to be the way forward? Her role seems prejudiced at present and while she remains in charge the likelihood or re-establishing peaceful Government remains hard to see.

That is the sort of compromise that seems logical and inevitable given the massive apparent problems with the scheme that she controlled.

Of course, it is always a sad possibility that people on either side will decide to try to force their way through a return to violence, I genuinely hope that they do not and that peace will continue. That small area has seen way too much viloelnce, destruction death and groef, the future needs to be brighter.

This article makes sense, I am making no comment about it's source, but as it says; she is "damaged goods"

Arlene Foster

sadly so much depends upon that other "leader" with blood stained hands and beard, will he be willing to move forward or will his intransigence take the whole of Northern Ireland down? Can he stop being a potential and historical terrorist and become a statesman? I have my doubts about that......

Dave


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

greygit said:


> Does that mean you also condemn the thousands of Muslims we are killing with our bombs as well?


YES, I deplore the death of anyone, for whatever reason.

I have NO doubt whatsoever that if ISIS, DAESH, and other similar groups expressed a genuine wish to partake in meaningful peace talks all of the violence would stop overnight. However they apparently think the ONLY route is to encourage people to drive trucks into groups of people out for the day.

I accept that there is violence from both sides. Should ISIS etc stop their barbaric actions I have no doubt hostilities would stop almost instantly, BUT do you think for an instant that if "we" withdraw from the region all would go quiet? Any such withdrawal would be seen by them as a sign of crass weakness to be exploited to the full and the violence would get even worse until they have imposed THEIR will over the rest.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> YES, I deplore the death of anyone, for whatever reason.
> 
> I have NO doubt whatsoever that if ISIS, DAESH, and other similar groups expressed a genuine wish to partake in meaningful peace talks all of the violence would stop overnight. However they apparently think the ONLY route is to encourage people to drive trucks into groups of people out for the day.
> 
> MrPlodd do you think the terrorist violence started before or after we started to bomb them?


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

You will have to go a much longer time before that.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

cabby said:


> You will have to go a much longer time before that.


 The Crusades ?


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Mrplodd said:


> YES, I deplore the death of anyone, for whatever reason.
> 
> I have NO doubt whatsoever that if ISIS, DAESH, and other similar groups expressed a genuine wish to partake in meaningful peace talks all of the violence would stop overnight. However they apparently think the ONLY route is to encourage people to drive trucks into groups of people out for the day.
> 
> I accept that there is violence from both sides. Should ISIS etc stop their barbaric actions I have no doubt hostilities would stop almost instantly, BUT do you think for an instant that if "we" withdraw from the region all would go quiet? Any such withdrawal would be seen by them as a sign of crass weakness to be exploited to the full and the violence would get even worse until they have imposed THEIR will over the rest.


The problem with that is we in the west treat Al Qaeda, ISIS, DAESH or whatever the latest name is as a tangible army when in fact they are an idea, a train of thought if you like. You cannot fight that with your own Army really. Its like herding fish. That nutcase the other day probably wasnt part of some big evil empire with a master plan. 9/11 was and was master minded for a long time by a group of pretty evil individuals but most of it these days I think is individuals or groups of individuals that are no more than deluded evil little criminal hooligans. I dont think you could ever sit down with "These people" as there will always be pockets of them around the globe that want to carry out these kind of things. I dont believe they are connected or organised at all. Most of it kicked off when the west started meddling in the middle east if I remember rightly but some of these evil little feckers dont need an excuse really. Not getting involved in wars based on lies in countries we have no right to be in might be a start of course but I doubt peace talks would ever work as who would you talk to?


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Fine Barryd, but then while they start their own wars, what do we do for oil etc to run our cars or Motorhomes.there would be a distinct shortage.They are worried that black gold will be worthless soon when electric is the norm.It is big business protecting itself yes, but cannot do it on their own.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Haven't the more recent civil wars been started since we left after two pointless wars and invasions by the west which achieved what exactly?

in northern Iteland it was different you had a tangible force you could sit down with (eventually) and it took both sides to back down I think. We could try meddling less In the Middle East but if oil is more important then your kind of stuffed really.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Exactly.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

barryd said:


> Haven't the more recent civil wars been started since we left after two pointless wars and invasions by the west which achieved what exactly?
> 
> in northern Iteland it was different you had a tangible force you could sit down with (eventually) and it took both sides to back down I think. We could try meddling less In the Middle East but if oil is more important then your kind of stuffed really.


 I don't think it's a case of either or regarding the oil but more who makes all of the money from it, I doubt very much if any substantial amount of money goes to the people who reside in the country its sucked out of.........they get bombed instead.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

You mean like Scotland? Except for the bombing and shooting of course. A poor country, with more food banks than anywhere else in the UK but the place that should have been oil rich for many years?


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Isn't it past the grey Gits bedtime, hope he's had his horlicks.

Just in case, I know hes deaf, PUT THE CLOCKS FORWARD TONIGHT


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

erneboy said:


> . A poor country, with more food banks than anywhere else in the UK but the place that should have been oil rich for many years?


That's the same country that has the highest rates of alcoholism., tobacco use and obesity you mean Alan? You wonder what they spent the oil revenues on don't you?


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

This applies throughout....from the film.............'Build it ,they will come'

Every foodbank in the Eu

Then they can go down and flog it for **** and booze.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

GEMMY said:


> This applies throughout....from the film.............'Build it ,they will come'
> 
> Every foodbank in the Eu
> 
> Then they can go down and flog it for **** and booze.


 Here we go as usual, two right wingers with hate and bile.:wink2:


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

peribro said:


> That's the same country that has the highest rates of alcoholism., tobacco use and obesity you mean Alan? You wonder what they spent the oil revenues on don't you?


Cause or symptom Peter? Neither I'd suggest since those problems predate the discovery of oil. It's well documented that they are result of poverty and hopelessness, as can be seen in poor areas all over the world.

Do you really think that the oil revenues were shared among all Scots and that many wasted it fecklessly? I'd be interested to know.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Was not gin a major social problem during Dickensian times when poverty, overcrowding, ill-health and atrocious living conditions prevailed? I don't think oil was being used a great deal then, it was mainly coal powered from what I have read. Mother's ruin was well known as it was cheap and impure and often made illicitly........

Predates oil though.....

How are living conditions now? Many people cannot afford to buy or rent decent accommodation, benefits have been cut so that there is a lack of support for "affordable housing" even on the rental market, there is VERY little social housing available and many young people are compelled to stay at home perhaps until their mid-30's.

Many people have no guaranteed income and the big growth has been in zero hours contracts - with absolutely no security and such things cannot be used for rental or mortgage purposes.......

Much of the private rental properties has been condemned as being unfit, or unsafe but there is little attempt to prosecute the landlords responsible, so the quality of housing may well be declining.

Going well isn't it?

Dave


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Earlier something described as an "innocent soldier" was mentioned.

In the context of NI could someone please explain just what that means?


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

greygit said:


> Mrplodd said:
> 
> 
> > YES, I deplore the death of anyone, for whatever reason.
> ...


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

I'm also puzzled by this reference to "blood on hands".

Do you only have "blood on your hands" if you (allegedly) actually pull the trigger yourself?

Or can you also have "blood on your hands" if you manage to con some other poor sod into pulling the trigger for you.

If so how do you compare the amount of blood on Thatcher's/Blair's/Bush's (1 or 2) hands which can be measured in 100's of thousands*, if not millions, with the very much smaller tally (by anyone's account) on McGuiness's hands?

*200 the other day alone now on Trump's hands, I wonder what May's tally is already?


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Are you having a bad day Stanner.Or has something stuck in the gullet. Blood is always on the hands of those that spill it, at the pointy end.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

cabby said:


> Are you having a bad day Stanner.Or has something stuck in the gullet. Blood is always on the hands of those that spill it, at the pointy end.


Hitler? None on his hands then?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I, and I suspect everyone else, knows EXACTLY what Stanner means by questioning "blood on his hands" and it is a question that is very real IMO.

Does the person have to actually kill someone else to attract that phrase? IMO a definite "NO", the phrase is equally attributable to those that directly kill, those that kill because they have been told to and those that kill unintentionally, but to a different degree.

Those that kill "by accident" or inadvertently have the lowest level of culpability, they presumably did not set out to kill or main but it has happened, perhaps "accidental death" might be appropriate.

Those that kill because they were told to carry out an attack or defence of a specific location, have the (questionable) defence that "they were following orders, legally given by their superiors - perhaps "manslaughter", if the order was not legally given then my response is more mixed, but probably "manslaughter" would still be my thoughts (Alexander Blackman for instance through diminished responsibility if indeed it was manslaughter due to the stresses he had been under - I don't think it counts as manslaughter by the way/ ).

Those that kill because they have been specifically given the order to kill a certain group of people,MAY have some defence but it becomes more questionable IMO, so "Justifiable homicide" may be appropriate.

Those that send out others to do the killing, intend for killing to take place and do not wish to question who is being killed, thereby denying them even a basic defence, those giving such orders are guilty of "Murder" IMO even though they did not actually do the killing - "murder by association" or "incitement to murder" or "conspiracy to murder" may be applied.

Maybe I am naive? I do not know. The case of Thatcher and the Falklands in my opinion was justifiable and as soon as it became clear that the Argentinians had been overcome the order was given to stop immediately. Iraq is more questionable and IMO Blair cannot use such a defence. Afghanistan is even more complex and IMO is also not justifiable, just because you do not approve of a regime does not entitle an attempt to overthrow. BUT Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were using Afghanistan as a base - and so attacking them WAS justified IMO.

Those are my thoughts, but I am sure others will have differing opinions, fortunately I do not have to apply my opinions to any case involving the taking of life...... I would not make a good PM / President / senior services officer - i.e. the people who have to make and justify, their actions. Particularly as they are often basing their decisions on flawed information and "intelligence".

Dave


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

This is not pretty but it is the reality of terrorism.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Did the bombing of WW2 create terrorists in Germany or the UK where such things happened daily......?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

From my own observations I can say that it doesn't need to be a child. A brother, cousin, uncle, father, acquaintance or even someone who is of the same religion or a fellow club member, of in the case of NI order member, may do equally well. In short, anyone who can be seen as "one of ours".


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

cabby said:


> Are you having a bad day Stanner.Or has something stuck in the gullet. Blood is always on the hands of those that spill it, at the pointy end.


Nope, genuinely puzzled about what makes someone a "cowardly killer" "murderer" "butcher" etc.

Is it really having to do the deed yourself or is it even more "cowardly" to get some subordinate to do it for you?

I think it is far less cowardly to pull the trigger or swing the sword yourself, than it is to order someone else who knows no better and daren't "disobey orders", to do it for you.

And as for doing it using a drone from thousands of miles away what can really be more cowardly than that?? At least have the guts to place yourself with at least the minimum modicum of personal peril. Instead of the most perilous thing you do all day is the drive home from "work". 
"Had a good day at work dear, any nice collateral damage today? Hope it's not anyone we know!"

If it carries on this way we are going to reach the situation parodied in an early Star Trek episode where 2 planest were fighting a virtusl war - they didn't actually fire any real weapons, just ran a computer program that told them how many of their people they had to kill after each "attack" to match the outcome of the war.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708414/


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

So you would prefer the David and Goliath style then, or a decision decided by single combat.Or as often said, by any bloody means make it happen.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Yes, that is what Heads of State should do.

They don't do much else useful.

The Buck should stop at the top.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Over here we say responsibility stops at the top.:grin2::grin2:


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Does that mean that the leaders do have 'blood on their hands' then Cabby?


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Penquin said:


> Did the bombing of WW2 create terrorists in Germany or the UK where such things happened daily......?


Have you been on the pop?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

greygit said:


> Have you been on the pop?


No.

sorry you obviously did not understand....

we bombed Germany throughout (virtually) WW2, did that create German people as terrorists?

The Luftwaffe bombed the UK throughout WW2 - too many cities to list, did that create terrorists in the UK against Germany?

Now go back and read what YOU posted on the picture on;

this post

where you posted;

*How to create a "terrorist" Murder the innocent child of a man who never did any harm to you.*

Those thoughts could equally well have been applied to the Germans and the Brits after WW2, but AFAIK they did not. Something else has happened which has caused the development of terrorism, perhaps the relatively easy access to bomb making materials, or weapons or finance to buy such things coupled with ease of smuggling them in.

We will never know what causes people to turn to terrorism other perhaps desperation and a feeling that their views are being steam rollered or ignored....... but I hope that the Remain camp does not produce terrorists as a result of the same feelings.....:surprise:


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

The thing about terrorists is that they have to have access to those they see as their enemy to be able to engage in acts of terror. Thus the events of WW2 are not comparable to any terrorist activity, but only because it was physically an impossible outcome. For sure the bombings did increase hatred on both sides had it been possible for civilians to retaliate I think we can be sure that some of them would have done so.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Penquin said:


> No.
> 
> sorry you obviously did not understand....
> 
> ...


The situations are not properly analagous are they?

The Germans and the British were at declared war with each other and each side knew why the other side were bombing them.
And Yes in a way the blitz did turn the British into "terrorists" because they became overwhelmingly supportive of "bombing the hell" out of the other side - effectively terrorising their opposite numbers in the opposing civilian population.

The difference now is that the innocent civilians being bombed by the "Allies" do not know why they are being terrorised by indiscriminate (whatever the Allies may claim otherwise) bombing and take it personally.

As for why the Republicans in NI felt the need to FINALLY resort to retaliation after many years of blatant political and religeous persecution you need to do as Alan says and do some reading. 
The line in the sand is not at the start of the "Troubles", but much much earlier.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

all very well to say read, but where is a reliable independent account of the NI history.I do mean an unbiased factual account.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

greygit said:


> This is not pretty but it is the reality of terrorism.


I would like to think I would never resort to violence to solve a problem but then I have lead a charmed, wealthy and easy life. I am lucky.

I look at the world as one place and all the people in it fall basically into two categories. Your either an Arsehole or your not (I did say basically). People are the same wherever they are from, some are bad, some are good. Some may love violence but some may be driven to it by stuff people like me can never imagine or have ever felt or experienced. Problem is that most people are like me. They have also led charmed and easy lives and its not within our comprehension to understand what would lead someone to violence. Im pissed so this might be bollox, or not.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Happy Leffe day Barry.....


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

*!!*



Penquin said:


> Happy Leffe day Barry.....


Totally. I have just read back what I wrote and it all makes sense to me. I reckon I should get some kind of FUCTS or Nobby peace prize for that or sumfink,

Look! Its simple. If everyone thought like me (and did what I told them) the world would be a better place would it not?


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

cabby said:


> all very well to say read, but where is a reliable independent account of the NI history.I do mean an unbiased factual account.


Ask Alan, as I understand it he holds no brief for either persuasion, so he may be able to advise.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

barryd said:


> I would like to think I would never resort to violence to solve a problem but then I have lead a charmed, wealthy and easy life. I am lucky.
> 
> I look at the world as one place and all the people in it fall basically into two categories. Your either an Arsehole or your not (I did say basically). People are the same wherever they are from, some are bad, some are good. Some may love violence but some may be driven to it by stuff people like me can never imagine or have ever felt or experienced. Problem is that most people are like me. They have also led charmed and easy lives and its not within our comprehension to understand what would lead someone to violence. Im pissed so this might be bollox, or not.


You sum it up wonderfully.

Those on here who criticise so freely and emphatically have never been (or even been close to being) in the position of those they feel so qualified to criticise.

I am quite certain that if they ever had been they would not be so quick to judge.

Were the French Resistance in WW2 justified in attacking what they saw as an "occupying army" and "punishing" what they saw as "collaborators"?


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Penquin said:


> No.
> 
> sorry you obviously did not understand....
> 
> ...


 Yep your right I don't understand as I think it a ludicrous augment and coming from you that is very unusual. :surprise:


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

cabby said:


> all very well to say read, but where is a reliable independent account of the NI history.I do mean an unbiased factual account.


Robert Kee's History of Ireland is widely accepted as a definitive work on the topic. https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Ro...F8&qid=1490603879&sr=8-12&keywords=Robert+Kee

Though the work of practically any respected historian would also do. No historian worthy of the name would attempt to spin history, if they did they'd quickly be discredited. Thus any respected historian will set out to produce a fair account and what they publish will be subjected to the scrutiny of their piers. Which is why I recommend books written by historians over those written by participants or other observers.

As you didn't know that it's obvious that you are new to history in which case Kee's book will suit admirably. It's as good a read as any history book can be I think.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Yes you are correct in your assumption that I am new to NI History, a subject that I found no need for, however our tutors did insist that we took on board what our great Empire was and how we built it and of course they threw in some details of the rest of the world (what little it was).Then the heartless buggers made us take exams on the stuff to make sure we were not nodding off in class.I ask you is that the way it should have been.:grin2::grin2:


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

If you are only new to NI history what parameters did you apply when selecting histories of The Empire? How did you attempt satisfy yourself that those books were unbiased?

Incidentally if you fancy a very good read on that topic I'd recommend Empire by Niall Ferguson. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Empire-Bri...0613525&sr=1-1&keywords=empire+niall+ferguson


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

You missed the point Alan, all our books etc were chosen for us, thats how schools were in those very dim and distant past.Churchil had not written his memoirs then.:wink2:College was not a lot different either. No internet in those days, or sat nav. sometimes even the road sign posts had not been returned.:grin2::grin2:


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

erneboy said:


> scrutiny of their piers.


...peers.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

cabby said:


> ............... our tutors did insist that we took on board what our great Empire was and how we built it and of course they threw in some details of the rest of the world (what little it was).


I hope they explained that we just stole it and murdered anyone who got in the way?


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

That basically sums up too many of the opinions on here, folk believe everything that liars* tell them.

*Sorry make that "embellishers of the truth".

I would love to read an account of the creation of our "Glorious Empire" in Africa written from the viewpoint of the indigenous population (well those who were left).


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I suspect it would be none too complementary of such things as slavery, forced exclusion from land, "ethnic cleansing" and so on...... The Empire was established because England had overwhelmingly efficient military techniques and weapons and were able to subjugate people who had no reason to suspect that such things were about to happen........

It is certainly NOT a history to be proud of as it was based on exploiting their resources at a minimum cost to the conquerors and taking their resources without adequate, if indeed any, recompense.

BUT it is what happened and the same was being done by Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal from amongst our near European neighbours - it was simply treated as the way to behave - fortunately such things are no longer acceptable. (Although Russia may still have similar intentions to regain territory they once ruled).

Dave


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

History ....great innit, I'm still waiting for the Romans to apologise, what about Gengis Khan while we are about it.

How far do we go back before the dust settles

tony


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Since the exams we did were set by an English exam board I expect the history we learned was the same as it was for Cabby. Empire was mainly a great adventure where the kindly English (almost exclusively) freed the natives of wherever from their oppressive leaders and their savage ways and brought them laws, religion, fair play and cricket.

I can't recall that Ireland was mentioned much at all beyond the Easter Rising (which was a bad thing and needed mentioning) and the next few years leading to independence. In general The Irish were and are a bunch of ingrates and have never been properly appreciative of all that England has so selflessly done for them.

Peers/piers. Doh. I even gave it a moment's thought. Oh well.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Penquin said:


> I suspect it would be none too complementary of such things as slavery, forced exclusion from land, "ethnic cleansing" and so on...... The Empire was established because England had overwhelmingly efficient military techniques and weapons and were able to subjugate people who had no reason to suspect that such things were about to happen........
> 
> It is certainly NOT a history to be proud of as it was based on exploiting their resources at a minimum cost to the conquerors and taking their resources without adequate, if indeed any, recompense.
> 
> ...


Its ok Dave as we are now well on the road to making sure we are as small and insignificant as possible. Ingerland will just be part of a little Island all on its tod


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

In many ways the USA is still trying to do the same now.

Ask the Chagos Islanders for one.


----------



## nickoff (Oct 11, 2005)

barryd said:


> Its ok Dave as we are now well on the road to making sure we are as small and insignificant as possible. Ingerland will just be part of a little Island all on its tod


As far as I'm concerned the sooner we become insignificant the better. I like the idea that we don't have to big ourselves up as being a major power in police forcing the world.

Nick.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

GEMMY said:


> History ....great innit, I'm still waiting for the Romans to apologise, what about Gengis Khan while we are about it.
> 
> How far do we go back before the dust settles
> 
> tony


I'm not sure anybody on here has asked for or expects apologies Tony. Maybe I missed that bit.

How far back do we go is a good question. I think the answer you'd get from any historian is quite simple. You go back as far as the beginning of any story, which includes examining the causes. You look for new, neglected, ignored or misinterpreted sources (deliberate or not) and seek to either corroborate or reject what they say by reference to other contemporary sources. Reject but not ignore. Try to discover and reveal why misrepresentation occurred.

For instance if you have an interest in WW1, which I do then you find the revelations in The Battle of the Somme, from both sides by Peter Barton absolutely fascinating and revelatory due to his having uniquely been granted access to German Military records to research the topic. It adds a great deal to our understanding of what went on.

For historians I'd suggest that the dust never settles. Would you ignore history or just have the victors write it to suit themselves, as usual?


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

GEMMY said:


> History ....great innit, I'm still waiting for the Romans to apologise, what about Gengis Khan while we are about it.
> How far do we go back before the dust settles tony


Yeah, mee too Tony. 
Feedin my rellies to their pet Lions indeed. Rome can afford to gimmee some comp.

Ray.


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

You see although we were all taught a particular view of history (it's always written by the "winners") and as a youth I would repeat the "jokes" I had heard from Alf 

Garnett .......................thankfully many of us have moved on in our thinking,our emotional responses and our view of the world.

"Without a sense of history we are like a tree without roots"................................ some black fella said that (Marcus Garvey)


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

What do you reckon the chances are of getting an apology and compensation from Rome now for the murder in the Coliseum?

Britain apologised for slavery (or a term very similar to apologise such as "expressed regret")...... I am not convinced that set a good precedent..... I think we have also apologised to the Aborigines (don't think that is the PC term now either but I hope that you know who I mean) and the Maoris and so on.....

BUT is it right for "modern day" people to be apologising for things done several hundred years ago?

As has been said, how far back does it go? And should it? 

I have not heard the USA apologising to the North American natives (= Red Indians as we used to be allowed to say as children), or the Innuit (Eskimos as we termed them).

Is the UK the only country issuing such statements? Have the French? The Germans? The Spanish - who wiped out some civilisations in their entirety) and so on.

Sadly History is always written by the victors from their point of view..... I have had a chance to have a detailed look at teaching material used in Germany to teach about WW1 and 2 and it makes interesting reading, much less how "Britain (and the USA) won the war" but more about how inevitable it was due to the way German fore-runners had been treated and also allowed to do things without negative comments being raised.

Maybe all teaching of history SHOULD use resources from different viewpoints - it certainly does not at present.....

The history of problems in Ireland goes back a lot further than the uprising in 1916, think potato famine, think land seizures from centuries earlier and expulsion of citizens - there is literally a whole history which is simply ignored in the 21st century......

Sadly IMO.

Dave


----------



## Joeo's (Dec 11, 2016)

In Irish history any account of events and the motivations underlying the events of the past are very dependant on the perspective of the "author" regardless of the writer's best intentions. The context and the circumstances of the time are important and perhaps we all make comments that are based only on our experiences and on biased information or education.

Humans, by nature, do good things and bad things to each other. Some of those bad things cause great pain for others and it is easy to understand that people find it very difficult to forgive or forget, even over generations.

When the Queen visited Ireland she was welcomed with genuine warmth and showed extraordinary courage and admirable leadership, I believe.

She said (I paraphrase -from memory only)
"We have all done things in the past that should not have been done and we have all suffered in the past"... "but let's look to the future and live together as friends and neighbours"

Is that not a fair, reasonable and eminently sensible way to proceed? Can we accept that there was great suffering on both sides in NI?
Can we accept that both communities have legitimate, but different political aspirations. Both are perfectly reasonable, and can surely be expressed in democratic elections that will determine their own future. 

Most commentators suggest that a devolved government with power sharing is the best current solution, where both sides have a vested interest in making it work for "their people". Surely in time, trust will develop and NI can become a healthy society where the political differences are battled out at elections, like any other western democracy. The people want it, so politicians must get on with it and do whatever it takes, with help from outside, if necessary.

I do feel the politicians in NI are some distance behind the population. In particular, young people seem to me, to want to move on and respect difference much more actively than the political leaders, on both sides. Young people in NI today want their education, their sport, their fun, their boy meets girl, a decent standard of living and are generally interested in moving on and leaving the past behind. Legacy issues of wrongdoing cannot be ignored but handled carefully -perhaps using models like South Africa etc. 
Or am I just very naive? Probably.

Regarding Brexit, I feel greatly saddened that the people of the great nation that saved Europe, not once but TWICE, at great human and economic cost, felt the need to leave the EU. An opportunity to actively change the EU for the better has been lost and the possibility of changing it incrementally greatly diminished, in my opinion.

The EU will probably survive into the future by making some of the changes that are needed and Britain will survive as it always has, but I think it is such a great pity for both that this is has been the outcome. This is not in any way a negative comment on the decision of the people but just a casual observation from the outside. 

I suspect the unelected Eurocrats are now wondering what kind of monstrosity they have created? EU's loss IMHO, but only time will tell how it works out for all.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Focus the politicians minds and stop their pay until they deliver for the young and old.

https://www.change.org/p/uk-governm...utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

Terry


----------



## jo662 (Jul 27, 2010)

Joeo's said:


> In Irish history any account of events and the motivations underlying the events of the past are very dependant on the perspective of the "author" regardless of the writer's best intentions. The context and the circumstances of the time are important and perhaps we all make comments that are based only on our experiences and on biased information or education.
> 
> Humans, by nature, do good things and bad things to each other. Some of those bad things cause great pain for others and it is easy to understand that people find it very difficult to forgive or forget, even over generations.
> 
> ...


What a very level headed post,thank you!:serious:


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

History is just that, history, but when written or read it is forgotten to include that times and ideas change, we should not judge those times based on our modern attitude to things. Thankfully attitudes and lifestyles have changed beyond comprehension of an era say 50 or 100 years ago. We are the outcome of history and should continue to improve understanding, not wander around with heads hung in shame at what our ancestors got up to.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I agree that moving on is what it should be about. That's happened up to a point in Ireland and I think we'll keep moving forward. So taking us back to where we began I'll repeat that MM and Adams played a big part in that, despite their past misdeeds.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

cabby said:


> History is just that, history, but when written or read it is forgotten to include that times and ideas change, we should not judge those times based on our modern attitude to things. Thankfully attitudes and lifestyles have changed beyond comprehension of an era say 50 or 100 years ago. We are the outcome of history and should continue to improve understanding, not wander around with heads hung in shame at what our ancestors got up to.


Well said - things that happened in the past, happened in the past and we must just all forgive and forget about it and move on. 
Nobody can continue to be held to account for what they may or may not have done in the past as that is just history.

Except (according to the bitter ones on here) Martin McGuinness who must be vilified for ever.

Funny that?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I half agree with you Stanner. I think there's no need to forgive and we must not forget. But we should be prepared to move forward even if we ourselves in uncomfortable company in order to do so.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I wonder whether Gerry Adams will be able to move forward and whether the DUP also are keen to move forward, I understand that for Arlene Foster to stand down even if temporarily would be a massive step but unless something massive happens there looks increasingly like no way forward......

It would be good if BOTH sides were able to offer a compromise, but Foster's position is difficult to compromise on - she is either there or not......

Hence my thought about a temporary step down while there is an investigation into what went wrong and why.....

BUT, is that really the reason why it is failing at the present?

from that article it appears that;

_"This is my understanding, that Sinn Féin has not, in the discussions we have had in the last week or so, raised the issue of Arlene Foster's position," Donaldson said,

The late Martin McGuinness's last public political act was to resign as deputy first minister in January. He did so in protest at Foster's refusal to stand aside temporarily from her post while a public inquiry was held into the energy scheme.

The renewal heating initiative, which the DUP championed, ended up costing the public purse an estimated half a billion pounds._

If her position was so pivotal why was it not mentioned?

I have the feeling that, as always, there may be more than is being reported; the BBC seems to have concentrated on her position as the key point, but is it?

I do not know and wonder whether anyone else has a greater understanding?

Dave


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

cabby said:


> History is just that, history, but when written or read it is forgotten to include that times and ideas change, we should not judge those times based on our modern attitude to things. Thankfully attitudes and lifestyles have changed beyond comprehension of an era say 50 or 100 years ago. We are the outcome of history and should continue to improve understanding, not wander around with heads hung in shame at what our ancestors got up to.


Thankfully Ulster folk maintain a sense of humour, credit to the DLA (Dundonald Liberation Army) for the pic below. :grin2:

Terry


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

That sounds almost universal.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Penquin said:


> I wonder whether Gerry Adams will be able to move forward and whether the DUP also are keen to move forward, I understand that for Arlene Foster to stand down even if temporarily would be a massive step but unless something massive happens there looks increasingly like no way forward......
> 
> It would be good if BOTH sides were able to offer a compromise, but Foster's position is difficult to compromise on - she is either there or not......
> 
> ...


Foster was the minister heading up the department that implemented the scheme, however the whole assembly voted for the implementation to go ahead, therefore no party had due diligence on their radar.

Others championed the scheme including the then minister for agriculture Michelle O'Neill, the new Martin Maguiness replacement. They all have a case to answer IMO but SF, like the other parties, are very good at deflecting blame and creating tension and a crisis to try and gain concessions.

However, the main issue is why was the scheme not closed to new entrants when the cock up was discovered and who stood to gain most ?

One thing that is clear, it's the NI tax payer who will foot the bill.

Terry


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Stanner said:


> Well said - things that happened in the past, happened in the past and we must just all forgive and forget about it and move on.
> Nobody can continue to be held to account for what they may or may not have done in the past as that is just history.
> 
> Except (according to the bitter ones on here) Martin McGuinness who must be vilified for ever.
> ...


So how about those who have been prosecuted and imprisoned for "Historic child abuse" t happened around the same time?? The victims of which are still alive, as opposed to MM's who are dead.

Murder is acceptable but child abuse isn't?

Just asking.

Andy


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> So how about those who have been prosecuted and imprisoned for "Historic child abuse" t happened around the same time?? The victims of which are still alive, as opposed to MM's who are dead.
> 
> Murder is acceptable but child abuse isn't?
> 
> ...


 Did the historic child abusers then go on to stamp out child abuse? I think your logic is a little flawed.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Mrplodd said:


> So how about those who have been prosecuted and imprisoned for "Historic child abuse" t happened around the same time?? The victims of which are still alive, as opposed to MM's who are dead.
> 
> Murder is acceptable but child abuse isn't?
> 
> ...


Do you really equate a struggle against oppression (whatever means were employed and regardless of who started it) with child abuse?

And are you still trying to imply that it was only the Republican side that committed "murders"?


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

So please explain in what way exactly my logic is flawed? You stated

Nobody can continue to be held to account for what they may or may not have done in the past as that is just history

So, according to the above statement you advocate that those who have been convicted of historic child abuse, and jailed, should not be held to account "as that is just history"? 

At what point would you suggest "history" begins following an occurrence, a week, a month, a year, 10 years ??

Andy


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

So what other examples of previous serious offences do you say should be "forgotten" because someone has decided to stop doing the same thing again? Rape, armed robbery, serious assault, burglary in an old persons house, sexually abusing a small child, corporate fraud, sustained tax evasion? I could go on.

Andy


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Mrplodd said:


> So please explain in what way exactly my logic is flawed? You stated
> 
> Nobody can continue to be held to account for what they may or may not have done in the past as that is just history
> 
> ...


1 - It was not me who questioned your logic

2 - If you read that post again, ask yourself why irony appears to go right over your head as I was paraphrasing what someone else had said earlier.

3 - Answer my question re "murder".


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

I quoted exactly what you had typed and those words were not contained within any "quote" frame.

1. Please be kind enough to answer my question as to where the "irony" (that has apparently gone over my head) is in you statement "Nobody can continue to be held to account for what they may or may not have done in the past as that is just history" 

2. Did the Loyalist side commit murder? I don't KNOW, the same as I don't KNOW if MM did. On the balance of probability I suspect parties from both side did and they should ALL be held to account regardless of what "side" they were on.

Is that a clear enough answer?

Andy


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Mrplodd said:


> I quoted exactly what you had typed and those words were not contained within any "quote" frame.
> 
> 1. Please be kind enough to answer my question as to where the "irony" (that has apparently gone over my head) is in you statement "Nobody can continue to be held to account for what they may or may not have done in the past as that is just history"


They were not in quotes because they were not a quote, but as I said a paraphrase of attitudes expressed earlier in the thread by others and paraphrased with irony in mind.



> 2. Did the Loyalist side commit murder? I don't KNOW, the same as I don't KNOW if MM did. On the balance of probability I suspect parties from both side did and they should ALL be held to account regardless of what "side" they were on.
> 
> Is that a clear enough answer?
> 
> Andy


Well that is rather a change from your earlier expressions of opinion on Martin McGuinness's past, in which you were far more sure of how "bad" he was.



> Never EVER forget what he did in order to get where he eventually ended up, he used violence of an extreme nature to achieve HIS aims *at the cost of many innocent lives* and that cannot ever be allowed to be forgotten.


I do not see anything unequivocal about that accusation, do you?

How do you feel about the many "extra-judicial" killings by the RUC and the so-called "Security" forces - do they count as "murders"?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> I quoted exactly what you had typed and those words were not contained within any "quote" frame.
> 
> 1. Please be kind enough to answer my question as to where the "irony" (that has apparently gone over my head) is in you statement "Nobody can continue to be held to account for what they may or may not have done in the past as that is just history"
> 
> ...


Are you really asking us to believe that you don't know whether the loyalists murdered people?

If you are it's way past time you got off this topic. It's a surprise you even felt able to venture an opinion at all.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I suspect his definition of "know" and yours may well differ, as a former police officer presumably he may have grave suspicions but unless he witnessed it personally or the person had been convicted in a Court of Law (rather than the Daily Wail or similar) he can only have suspicions.

That is the crucial difference in a definition causing what appears to be such a major difference in opinion......

I do not KNOW that but that would be my SUSPICION.

Dave


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Penquin said:


> I suspect his definition of "know" and yours may well differ, as a former police officer presumably he may have grave suspicions but unless he witnessed it personally or the person had been convicted in a Court of Law (rather than the Daily Wail or similar) he can only have suspicions.
> 
> That is the crucial difference in a definition causing what appears to be such a major difference in opinion......
> 
> ...


Well to firm up anyone's suspicions see link below, and yes I know some don't trust the BBC but you will find this accurate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence

Terry


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Ohh No "suspicion" rarely if ever comes into it.

We have been told many times by ex-policemen on this and certainly on another well known forum, that they have KNOWN exactly who did what and have had no compunction in "arranging" things so that the person they "know" did it gets done for something.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

dghr272 said:


> Well to firm up anyone's suspicions see link below, and yes I know some don't trust the BBC but you will find this accurate.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_violence
> 
> Terry





> The first Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) officer killed was shot on the Shankill Road by the UVF.


 :surprise:


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Stanner said:


> :surprise:


Constable Victor Arbuckle.


----------



## Revise (May 13, 2012)

All sides committed serious crimes that nobody wanted to continue. Although I can agree that the crimes they committed can never by justified or forgotten, I dread to think of the alternative if the killings carried on.

My blood boils when I think of the atrocities carried out by ALL SIDES. But sometimes (ONLY SOMETIMES) the ends are justified by the means. 
We give people a reduced sentence if they plead guilty early, so we have given some of the criminals a get out of jail card if they have helped bring to an end most of the violence and killing that was going on. However hard it is to accept, it had to be done. 

How many more bombs and killings would have happened if we had not?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Penquin said:


> I suspect his definition of "know" and yours may well differ, ...............
> Dave


Yes they do differ I think Dave, but not in the way you seem to be trying to suggest.

I know because there have been hundreds of well documented cases where loyalists were convicted of murder. I "know" this because it's been in the news constantly for the last 35 or 40 years.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Thank you Dave (Penquin) 

At least you have an understanding of the difference between know and suspect, or fact versus suspicion. It is an accepted FACT the MM was a senior leader of the IRA, there is a very strong SUSPICION that he was involved at some level, in much of the brutality dished out by the IRA. No-one has been able to have any of the evidence (if indeed there is any) that MM had committed some of the brutality dished out, by a court. That means it remains a strong SUSPICION but not a proven FACT. 

Erneboy

Why should I stop posting on this thread? Because my views differ from yours our others? Am I not just as entitled to "Free speech" as you are? How would you feel if I suggested YOU stopped posting because your views differ from mine? 

Stanner

If you trawl back through my posts I have never stated that I KNOW (beyond all reasonable doubt because that's the test I work to) what MM did or did not do, what I did do was highlight what the perceived perception of others (with far more information than you or I will ever have access to) were. Neither have I stated at any point that I KNOW what others did or did not do. 

I have also been unequivocal in condemning the violence committed by both side. I have never said the murders were not committed by ALL sides, AND, more importantly, neither have I attempted to justify ANY of them because "what else could they do?" 

Murder is NEVER justified except in very exceptional circumstances, such as self defence and then the burden of proof is turned around and it's the accused who has prove themselves justified in taking the actions they did. Remember gangster Kenneth Noye who murdered a motorist in a road rage incident some years ago now? A few years previously he stabbed and killed a CID officer carrying out surveillance on his house but was found not guilty because he convinced the court he acted in self defence.

Surely the purpose of this thread is to discuss the passing on MM rather than an attempt (by some) to put me on trial because my personal view of him differs from theirs. I have always been polite and attempted to put my point of view across using reasoned argument without resorting to insulting or questioning the integrity of others yet some seem to feel the need to attack me personally. 

I am happy to state for the record that.......

"I may disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it" 


All of the postings and disagreements cannot alter one simple FACT.

Martin McGuiness is still dead!

Andy


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

You said you didn't know whether loyalists had committed murders. That shows a complete lack of knowledge on the topic.

Also if you have a look back I did not suggest that you stop posting. I said quite clearly while posting you demonstrated that you know practically nothing about the subject. I expressed surprise that you felt able to offer opinions on about something you are so onviously ignorant of.

That's very lazy, there's a wealth of information readily available.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Mrplodd said:


> Murder is NEVER justified except in very exceptional circumstances, such as self defence and then the burden of proof is turned around and it's the accused who has prove themselves justified in taking the actions they did.


An example

Was the killing of occupying Germans and their collaborators by the French Resistance in WW2 "murder" and if so was it justified?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Stanner said:


> An example
> 
> Was the killing of occupying Germans and their collaborators by the French Resistance in WW2 "murder" and if so was it justified?


It depends which side you were on, which is the same as the situation Ploddy has put himself in. He aligns himself with the establishment thus practically everything the establishment did is justifiable in his eyes while practically everything those opposing it did must be wrong, even apparently to the extent that he doesn't regard the loyalists as having committed murders. Or perhaps his grasp of the topic is actually so weak that he missed oot on the hundreds of murders they committed and claimed.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

erneboy said:


> You said you didn't know whether loyalists had committed murders. That shows a complete lack of knowledge on the topic.
> 
> .


Yet again, and for the avoidance of doubt.

There is a huge difference between knowing (which requires proof) and suspecting (which can exist without proof)

I am sure (or if you prefer, suspect strongly) that loyalists DID commit murders, but I have no PROOF that any _particular individual_ carried out a specific act.

I am likewise sure that MM (a particular individual) was closely involved in murders BUT I have no PROOF. Therefore I cannot KNOW he did, only suspect.

Therefore it is simply impossible for me to say that I KNOW because there is no irrefutable proof available, only inference and suggestion, hence my use of the words "suspect" and "believe" but nowhere have I stated that I know, because no-one does (other than the perpetrators of course) I am Specifically referring to individuals NOT groups.

It is clear that many "groups" (of all persuasions) carried out unlawful acts but it is not possible to prosecute "groups" only individuals. I am aware of the findings into Bloody Sunday and it is crystal clear to me that some of those involved most certainly SHOULD be held to account in a court of law. I _suspect_that Political decisions were made, for whatever reason, not to pursue such a course of action (but I don't KNOW that to be a fact)

I do not believe that I have stated anywhere that any of the murders that occurred were justified or lawful, anyone guilty of murder should face a court of law, but in order to do that evidence must be presented, if no evidence is available (due to intimidation etc by any side/group/party) then no prosecution is possible no matter how much suspicion there is.

Stanner

In answer to your question I would suggest you consult the Geneva Convention as THAT is what lays out internationally accepted conduct during wartime and that over-rides civilian law. BUT that convention only applies once two countries have actually declared war on each other, a state of war existed between Germany and France at that time and as such the Geneva Convention over-rode French civilian law. My personal view would be that French Nationals would be justified in killing members of the occupying army in defence of their country, I am not familiar enough with the Geneva Convention to pass comment on the killing of collaborators because I don't KNOW (that word again) if they would be classed, because of their actions, as part of the occupying forces. I SUSPECT they would be but as I don't KNOW, do you?

Andy


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

erneboy said:


> It depends which side you were on, which is the same as the situation Ploddy has put himself in. He aligns himself with the establishment thus practically everything the establishment did is justifiable in his eyes while practically everything those opposing it did must be wrong, even apparently to the extent that he doesn't regard the loyalists as having committed murders.


As you have seen fit to make certain comments about what I do or do not think Please be good enough to do one of two things.

Either fully retract the above statement as being untrue

OR

Post a quote from one of my posts that states, or even infers, any of the above.

If you are able to do so I will happily post an apology. If you are UNABLE to will you post an apology to me??

Andy


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Proof? How about the hundreds of loyalists who were convicted of murder? You only suspect that those actually happened?

http://alphahistory.com/northernireland/loyalist-paramilitaries/


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I won't be apologising for correcting someone who thinks the loyalists didn't murder people.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Erneboy

OK you got me fair and square on that one! And a Guilty plea is entered M'lud

I am sure you don't think for an instant that I was totally unaware of the many Loyalists convicted of murder but, to be fair, I didn't make that abundantly clear when I stated that I SUSPECTED many loyalists had. Perhaps I should have said many who have never been identified/brought to justice but I didn't. I have however always said that murder (by either side) cannot be justified haven't I?

I am happy to suggest that we now shake hands and return to the playground, play nicely together and agree to differ (how unusual) and move on because, no matter what we say on here one FACT is irrefutable, Martin McGuiness, is still, and will always remain, dead.

Andy

P.S. I wonder if we would like each other if we ever met face to face?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> Erneboy I wonder if we would like each other if we ever met face to face?


I am sure that face to face there would be no enmity at all.

and that would apply to anyone on here meeting anyone else because we all share ONE PASSION -

*MOTORHOMES.*

Dave:grin2:


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Penquin said:


> we all share one passion *MOTORHOMES.*
> 
> Dave:grin2:


Good point BUT

I have a CARAVAN :surprise:

Andy


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Thank you Andy. There was no animosity.

I agree that MM did very bad things, and despite the lack of proof I also think he must have killed people which I abhor.


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Will you leave the basterd alone, the devil is getting really pi$$ed off taking him away from the boiling oil


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> Good point BUT
> 
> I have a CARAVAN :surprise:
> 
> Andy


There now you see.....

this is a MOTORHOME forum so that leads one towards a suspicion......

your avatar says you own a caravan, once again a suspicion, but not FACT as I have not seen any evidence of that....

coupled with the fact that our Swift Kontiki MOTORHOME is registered here in "_la belle France_" as a _CARAVANE _and that's a FACT

Our MH

so my SUSPICION about your method of sleeping and transport can only be based on SUSPICION and that's a FACT (I think > )

Dave


----------

