Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You said people always fight back against oppression the world over. So part of that fighting back policy, directed by Martin McGuinness was the maiming and murdering of innocent people.
What I was asking you was do you agree with this policy of the IRA?
You describe Norman Tebbit as a hawk his entire life. As far as I know, he didn't order the murder of innocent civilians in his time as a politician. Do you believe his wife being crippled was just collateral damage?
I am curious about the mindset of Irish citizens. I knew a few when I was in the army, and the way they thought about such things always interested me.
tebbit was on the very right of the most right wing tory goverment of the twentieth century , britain has always been involved in military campaigns so death ( and the doling out of it ) was something he obviously tolerated and supported even innocents died ( which of course they did ) , he was no dove, britain has always been a violent state , so too is the usa and most of the other powers of the world , i like the uk and the british but lets not be hypocritical here , mc guinness was obviously a brutal man in his early years but hardly any different to countless ( respectable and decorated ) british generals and of course politicians
the IRA campaign was a reaction to systematic discrimination and oppression which london tolerated , as was the campaign of 1916 which brought about independence to the south , imperial powers dont give up without a fight and its not like a small country like ireland could ever take on the british in conventional warfare , ireland tried that for several centuries and lost every time , the campaign from 1969 on was a legacy of 1916 in reality
london should have repatriated the unionist population back to scotland post 1921 and allowed the entire island to go free , the unionists are great in their own way but like many scots are deeply neurotic about catholicism , brexit has brought forward the posibility of a united ireland , of that there is no doubt , brexit is a disaster for the economy of northern ireland , were scotland to leave the uk , that would crown it for the unionists as the cultural link is broken
Last edited by irish_bob; 03-21-2017 at 08:40 AM..
tebbit was on the very right of the most right wing tory goverment of the twentieth century , britain has always been involved in military campaigns so death ( and the doling out of it ) was something he obviously tolerated and supported even innocents died ( which of course they did ) , he was no dove, britain has always been a violent state , so too is the usa and most of the other powers of the world , i like the uk and the british but lets not be hypocritical here , mc guinness was obviously a brutal man in his early years but hardly any different to countless ( respectable and decorated ) british generals and of course politicians
the IRA campaign was a reaction to systematic discrimination and oppression which london tolerated , as was the campaign of 1916 which brought about independence to the south , imperial powers dont give up without a fight and its not like a small country like ireland could ever take on the british in conventional warfare , ireland tried that for several centuries and lost every time , the campaign from 1969 on was a legacy of 1916 in reality
london should have repatriated the unionist population back to scotland post 1921 and allowed the entire island to go free , the unionists are great in their own way but like many scots are deeply neurotic about catholicism , brexit has brought forward the posibility of a united ireland , of that there is no doubt , brexit is a disaster for the economy of northern ireland , were scotland to leave the uk , that would crown it for the unionists as the cultural link is broken
Thank you Bob. I know you as a thoughtful, intelligent poster. I was curious how you saw the situation back then, and the reasons for it.
I understand fully the IRA attacks on the politicians, and the army, and their reasoning in doing so. I still don't understand why the IRA set about killing innocent civilians, many of them Irish.
I fully acknowledge the desire of the IRA for a united Ireland. Though, in modern reality, I don't believe the Irish Government want it. It would be a very expensive acquisition.
I don't like to see anyone suffer or die in such circumstances, and a lot of what went on in Northern Ireland was wrong in relation to all sides, whilst as Ghandi once famously said 'An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind'.
In terms of McGuinness he did redeem himself later in life through embracing peace, and any forgiveness is now between him and his maker.
Thank you Bob. I know you as a thoughtful, intelligent poster. I was curious how you saw the situation back then, and the reasons for it.
I understand fully the IRA attacks on the politicians, and the army, and their reasoning in doing so. I still don't understand why the IRA set about killing innocent civilians, many of them Irish.
I fully acknowledge the desire of the IRA for a united Ireland. Though, in modern reality, I don't believe the Irish Government want it. It would be a very expensive acquisition.
You sang a slightly different tune in past debates:
I personally thought McGuinness was a louse. But also a bit like George Wallace. A reprehensible man who turned his back on old methods and embraced change and compromise. Moral conversion or cold pragmatism? Don't know.
He and his gang were akin to Black September, the ETA, etc. They saw themselves as freedom fighters while others- especially their targets- saw them as terrorists. Sometimes the same people who decried IRA violence took a more nuanced if not enthusiastic view of violence from other so-called national liberation movements. Ah, it's always different when they are targeting YOU.
I love how people make so much about his transition towards politics and peace later in life. They're forgetting that a major reason for this was because British intelligence had infiltrated the highest levels of the IRA, before long he would have faced justice for his crimes. Taking part in the peace process allowed him and many of his buddies to receives legal immunity.
Although I do recognise some hypocrisy from the media. The story of Martin McGuinness in many ways parallels that of Nelson Mandela. Earlier in their lives they were violent terrorists who were responsible for the deaths of many innocent people
Yet when Mandela died virtually all of the coverage was positive, and focused on his later life as a peaceful politician. With McGuinness they are focusing equally on both sides of his character.
People don't become better when they're dead; you just talk about them as if they are. But it's not true! People are still *******s, they're just dead *******s!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
