Did McGuinness complete his journey?

TakeitAll

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
1,605
I don't believe that McGuiness sought to atone for anything. In the early part of his life he believed that violence was the best means to achieve one's aims. In the later decades of his life he reallsed the futility of such violence and as such pursued a differeent path. It really is as simple as that.
You missed the bit that in between IRA/Sinn Fein thought they could do both, continue with terrorism while at the same time pursue political aims.
 


derryman

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
10,921
Every one appears to have forgotten that when Martin joined the IRA , politics to that date had not worked in the six counties for several hundred years and at that time it seemed politics were never going to work. I wonder if even today , when we have so many agreements being reneged upon by the British and Irish governments and being stonewalled by unionism if indeed politic is even working now.

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

The betrayals still continue.
 

DavidCaldwell

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
3,952
@derryman

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

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
16,158
By the lights of large strands of Nationalist tradition, Martin McGuinness was a great man, not only for his role as a peace-maker, but also for the determination, bravery and leadership he showed during the conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have two questions.

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

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

Emboldened and underlined is my own personal mantra.

I think that he would have been carrying the pain in his heart for all the lost lives... always ...
 

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
19,368
By

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

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

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

From my perspective Martin has as good a chance when he meets God as the next person who fought for what they thought was the right reason.
 

RodShaft

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
9,207
By the lights of large strands of Nationalist tradition, Martin McGuinness was a great man, not only for his role as a peace-maker, but also for the determination, bravery and leadership he showed during the conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have two questions.

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

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

This State was created by killing people.

The problem with the IRA campaign was that it was not effective enough.
 

RodShaft

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Messages
9,207
Emboldened and underlined is my own personal mantra.

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

You must be in tears over government policy which kills people on hospital trollies every day.
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,719
By the lights of large strands of Nationalist tradition, Martin McGuinness was a great man, not only for his role as a peace-maker, but also for the determination, bravery and leadership he showed during the conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have two questions.

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

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

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

Boy M5

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
21,420
The sad thing is we have an agreed Ireland.
That is now being trashed by Brexit.
Which DUP leadership supported. I don't understand why as it threatens to destabalise what was hard won.
They are intelligent people, surely they are not economically and politically illiterate?

As for OP McGuinness completed his journey, but not his personal political goal of a united Ireland
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,560
Fact is the Republican Movement shape shifted into something different over the years

- evolutionary necessity perhaps

- and the survival of the fittest

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

- quid pro quo to the other side too

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

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

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


-
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,560
The sad thing is we have an agreed Ireland.
That is now being trashed by Brexit.
Which DUP leadership supported. I don't understand why as it threatens to destabalise what was hard won.

As for OP McGuinness completed his journey, but not his personal political goal of a united Ireland
His Party opposed the EEC/EU for years

- and now they are all for it!:shock:
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,719
Last edited:
Last edited:
By the lights of large strands of Nationalist tradition, Martin McGuinness was a great man, not only for his role as a peace-maker, but also for the determination, bravery and leadership he showed during the conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have two questions.

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

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

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

I am opposed to violence. However, not being violent or supporting violence is not a choice I can make alone. Even if I am against violence it may be a decision that conflicts with my will to live or my will to protect my family. At that point I might choose violence while still opposing it on principle.
 

InsideImDancing

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
21,620
McGuiness looked around at his people getting bullied. Treated like dirt. HE said naw, fook right off, thank you please.

He fought the decrepit British state in Ireland.

He's in heaven right now. :)

So ************************ety you. :)
 

InsideImDancing

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
21,620
His Party opposed the EEC/EU for years

- and now they are all for it!:shock:
So what?

Talking shyte, Cat, sorry. EEC pfft. They've got serious problems to deal with ffs. I'm sick of reading this garbage.

The EU is such a boogeyman, causing so many problems for the Irish. No it fek'n isn't. It's causing serious problems for the Britisih. And the odd fook'n moron.
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,719
So what?

Talking shyte, Cat, sorry. EEC pfft. They've got serious problems to deal with ffs. I'm sick of reading this garbage.

The EU is such a boogeyman, causing so many problems for the Irish. No it fek'n isn't. It's causing serious problems for the Britisih. And the odd fook'n moron.
It's like saying Cat Stevens shouldn't be a moslem as he was a christian.
 

InsideImDancing

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
21,620

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,770
What happened on bloody sunday against the local population in Derry was terrosism. Do you recognise that as terrosim? Until you do, you have no right whatsoever to label what you see fit as terrosim.
As has been shown and proven beyond all reasonable doubt the killings on Bloody Sunday were spontaneous and unathorisedand carried out by a relatively small number of soldiers acting on their own initiative. Some of in fact them may have believed that they were under fire and this is not an unreasonable assumption given the circumstances. On the other hand there were those who almost certainly fired at people who were clearly unarmed and presented no threat. Such individuals are murderers, but they are not terrorists in the generally accepted sense. These action were entirely untypical of the overall behaviour and conduct of the 300,000 or so members of the British Army during the 37 years of Operation Banner.

It would not be unrealistic to say that every single person killed directly or indireclty by members of the various republican criminal terrorist groups was killed as a result of a planned action carried out in pursuit of a widely known aim and in the course of a settled and accepted strategy. That strategy was to achieve a united Ireland by the use of the so-called "armed struggle", and as such it is widely accepted as Terrorism, in exactly the same way that numerous murderous incidents over recent years and recent days in fact, carried out by or on behalf of the so-called ISIS, were also terrorism.
Of course it would have been better had the killings and bombings never been carried out. As well documented, the Good Friday agreement was the Sunningdale Agreement for slow learners.
So you think that the failure of the Sunningdale Agreement, which the republican terorrists did not support anyway, and the contunaution of Direct Rule was sufficient excuse for another 20 years of murders and bombings by republican terrorists, is that it?
Was it really necessary that people who had no say in the matter of the "armed struggle" had to be burnt to death, blown to pieces and shot dead in front of their families?
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,450

DavidCaldwell

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
3,952
Last edited:
Last edited:
Supra, InsideImDancing,

You may be missing an important point, one that McGuinness, amongst others, seemed to be coming to accept (though I may be mistaken in this) - namely that, for issues such as the question of whether violence is justified in a particular situation, it is not enough to consider one's own opinions about the matter. It is also important to consider the opinions of other people - particularly if they are going to be the victims.

You would not accept an analysis of Bloody Sunday that considered only the opinions of the likes of Soldier F, without consideration of those who died. Why, then, when addressing the question of whether PIRA's campaign was justified, do you seem not consider the opinions of the people and communities targeted by the violence?

Perhaps I am being unfair on you. I realise that I will have only a very limited picture of your thoughts, which may well be more nuanced than the necessarily brief comments here (which I may in any case be failing to fully understand).
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom