Martin Mcguinnes dead

[Robertj21a]

boobles said:

Robertj21a said:

A very fair summary and a timely reminder of why Ireland will, probably, never be one of the safer places for the ordinary man/woman.

It is safe. I have never in all the times I have been over felt in any danger what so ever.



Apart from the very first time years ago when there was a bomb scare on the boat

You're very lucky. I'm usually quite happy to travel anywhere but the times spent around Belfast and Derry have invariably proved decidedly uncomfortable.

[boobles]

Robertj21a said:

boobles said:

Robertj21a said:

A very fair summary and a timely reminder of why Ireland will, probably, never be one of the safer places for the ordinary man/woman.

It is safe. I have never in all the times I have been over felt in any danger what so ever.



Apart from the very first time years ago when there was a bomb scare on the boat

You're very lucky. I'm usually quite happy to travel anywhere but the times spent around Belfast and Derry have invariably proved decidedly uncomfortable.

I also think a lot of is keeping myself to myself without trying to cause anyone any problems. I stay in Antrim alot so I know all about the "rough" areas. Sorry to anyone who might live in Antrim, but it is rough.

[JuniorD]

omniflow said:

citizensm1th said:

McGuinnes considered himself from the very start to be a soldier engaged in unrestricted warfare against britian,no target was out of bounds in his mind.He was spotted as a rising star from the very start in the republican movement and swiftly moved through the ranks by virtue of his intelligence and total ruthlessness. (and quite possibly help from british secret services allegedly).

This is the part of the entire sorry tale that I really have a big problem with. If he, and the IRA, truly were soldiers engaged in unrestricted warfare against Britain, then surely Britain would have been totally in line with International Law to engage in unrestricted warfare against the IRA - possibly subject to a couple of formal announcements.

Had we done this, then the IRA would have been wiped off the face of the earth within six months. Sure, there would have been some collateral damage, and a fair few additional people would have been recruited to the "cause" - but it would have been quicker and much more effective than what actually happened. Far fewer innocent people would have died as a result.

100% he was a terrorist - all the way up until Sunday, when he became a dead terrorist.

Why is collateral damage caused by British forces kind of all right, but not collateral damage caused by the IRA?

[irocfan]

JuniorD said:

omniflow said:

citizensm1th said:

McGuinnes considered himself from the very start to be a soldier engaged in unrestricted warfare against britian,no target was out of bounds in his mind.He was spotted as a rising star from the very start in the republican movement and swiftly moved through the ranks by virtue of his intelligence and total ruthlessness. (and quite possibly help from british secret services allegedly).

This is the part of the entire sorry tale that I really have a big problem with. If he, and the IRA, truly were soldiers engaged in unrestricted warfare against Britain, then surely Britain would have been totally in line with International Law to engage in unrestricted warfare against the IRA - possibly subject to a couple of formal announcements.

Had we done this, then the IRA would have been wiped off the face of the earth within six months. Sure, there would have been some collateral damage, and a fair few additional people would have been recruited to the "cause" - but it would have been quicker and much more effective than what actually happened. Far fewer innocent people would have died as a result.

100% he was a terrorist - all the way up until Sunday, when he became a dead terrorist.

Why is collateral damage caused by British forces kind of all right, but not collateral damage caused by the IRA?

if you honestly can't tell the difference then there's no helping you

[johnxjsc1985]

irocfan said:

if you honestly can't tell the difference then there's no helping you

I was going to reply but really what is the point some people are beyond help.

[King Herald]

JuniorD said:

Why is collateral damage caused by British forces kind of all right, but not collateral damage caused by the IRA?

Same way we can bomb the holy snot out of a crowded city like Baghdad, in the middle of the night, and it is okay, but one little car bomb in the west, and.......

[Rick_1138]

bmw535i said:

Genuinely interested, what's the story behind that, I have an idea but not sure f it relates to the guys who got lost and drove into a funeral

[Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah]

King Herald said:

JuniorD said:

Why is collateral damage caused by British forces kind of all right, but not collateral damage caused by the IRA?

Same way we can bomb the holy snot out of a crowded city like Baghdad, in the middle of the night, and it is okay, but one little car bomb in the west, and.......

Far from saying it's alright, a large number of Brits, myself and somewhat 1 million people who marched in protest against it, were against the Iraqi war. It has also in turn become Blairs most toxic legacy.

[PH XKR]

bmw535i said:

Former NI deputy first minister Martin McGuinness dies aged 66 - Sky News
https://apple.news/AOICqaqUnT9mGZkWIxZ_R-g

Oh dear how sad

Good. End thread.

[King Herald]

Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:

Far from saying it's alright, a large number of Brits, myself and somewhat 1 million people who marched in protest against it, were against the Iraqi war. It has also in turn become Blairs most toxic legacy.

Definitely. It was not a collective British attack supported unanimously.

However, it seems to be ingrained in most people's psyche that whatever 'we' do in battles is okay, including starting them, but 'the enemy' are always in the wrong.

Without getting deep into the politics of these numerous situations, when the west decides a regime change is required, when some leader or despot is deemed to have gone too far, then it is okay for us to arrange his overthrow, to take them out, to invade their country. The USA is famous for it, the U.K. not so bad.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Most of us never see enough of the big picture to accurately say whether we did right or wrong.

[Dr Jekyll]

King Herald said:

Without getting deep into the politics of these numerous situations, when the west decides a regime change is required, when some leader or despot is deemed to have gone too far, then it is okay for us to arrange his overthrow, to take them out, to invade their country. The USA is famous for it, the U.K. not so bad.

Examples?

[kelvink]

King Herald said:

JuniorD said:

Why is collateral damage caused by British forces kind of all right, but not collateral damage caused by the IRA?

Same way we can bomb the holy snot out of a crowded city like Baghdad, in the middle of the night, and it is okay, but one little car bomb in the west, and.......

There is no satisfactory answer to that conundrum because, as has always been the case, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's all about what perspective you are viewing the atrocity/collateral damage from. We bombed the st out of Dresden in WW2 on purpose when it had no military significance, was not important to German wartime production nor a major industrial center and undoubtedly killed many-many innocent anti-nazis on the ground as 'collateral damage'. But everybody got the message from it. Thats exactly what the IRA were doing, sending a message to the British public. I don't condone it but let he who is without sin etc.

[King Herald]

Dr Jekyll said:

Examples?

Name almost any American military involvement since WW2 and you have a good idea.

Iraq is the most obvious one for the UK, followed by Libya.

[King Herald]

kelvink said:

There is no satisfactory answer to that conundrum because, as has always been the case, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's all about what perspective you are viewing the atrocity/collateral damage from. We bombed the st out of Dresden in WW2 on purpose when it had no military significance, was not important to German wartime production nor a major industrial center and undoubtedly killed many-many innocent anti-nazis on the ground as 'collateral damage'. But everybody got the message from it. Thats exactly what the IRA were doing, sending a message to the British public. I don't condone it but let he who is without sin etc.

Well put.

The Germans had already bombed seven shades out of central London for months, earlier in the war, for much the same reason we bombed Dresden. Demoralising the innocent average people, by destroying them and theirs, was considered an acceptable thing to do then. And it still is, by the looks of things.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, and that subject has been done to death here before, but time passed and then one day he was a super hero, to many. All a question of perception.

[SMcP114]

Zod said:

Ructions said:

Jinx said:

JuniorD said:

Of course they didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_...

Oh but yes you are right, they weren't shopping centres.

That was the UVF.

The UVF, like all other loyalist groups, were controlled by the RUC and/or the British military.


Martin McGuinness never went to war, the war came to him. It came to his streets, it came to his city, it came to his community.

Liar.

Well, he's not is he?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang

I never thought I'd say this but reading this thread I wish I wish English. I wish I had such a deluded view of current affairs, it makes me wonder what exactly you were being told over there during the Troubles. I suspect it was pretty much the same nonsense 'The Muslims' now face.

For a pretty serious thread this has given me an unexpectedly good laugh.

[anonymous-user]

Rick_1138 said:

Genuinely interested, what's the story behind that, I have an idea but not sure f it relates to the guys who got lost and drove into a funeral

No, they were Royal Signals

[johnxjsc1985]

King Herald said:

Same way we can bomb the holy snot out of a crowded city like Baghdad, in the middle of the night, and it is okay, but one little car bomb in the west, and.......

And you can criticise the Government of the Day for their actions without fear, how many people could openly criticise The IRA ?? or how many did and survive?.

[kelvink]

johnxjsc1985 said:

King Herald said:

Same way we can bomb the holy snot out of a crowded city like Baghdad, in the middle of the night, and it is okay, but one little car bomb in the west, and.......

And you can criticise the Government of the Day for their actions without fear, how many people could openly criticise The IRA ?? or how many did and survive?.

What a strange remark. I don't remember anybody in the UK having a problem criticising the IRA back in the 70's and 80's. Politicians, the media, the public etc

[Jinx]

SMcP114 said:

Well, he's not is he?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang

I never thought I'd say this but reading this thread I wish I wish English. I wish I had such a deluded view of current affairs, it makes me wonder what exactly you were being told over there during the Troubles. I suspect it was pretty much the same nonsense 'The Muslims' now face.

For a pretty serious thread this has given me an unexpectedly good laugh.

Controlled does not equal colluded so yes he is a liar.

[johnxjsc1985]

kelvink said:

What a strange remark. I don't remember anybody in the UK having a problem criticising the IRA back in the 70's and 80's. Politicians, the media, the public etc

what a strange reply I don't remember many people being free in N.I to openly criticise the IRA and I am talking of the Public not members of other Para Military organisations.