Martin Mcguinnes dead

Author
Discussion

SMcP114

2,916 posts

192 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
S11Steve said:
kurt535 said:
Can't disagree very nasty covert stuff did go on but way above your average squaddie's payscale sitting in their sangar waiting for an RPG or sniper round.
There's still a lot of people bitter about the "random" house searches carried out by the Army, but invariably it was to create a distraction whilst one of the Det went in and bugged another local house. All the locals would come out to jeer and throw things at the search party, leaving the undercover guys to go about their work unhindered.

I'm pretty certain that even though the high level role McGuinness had was widely known, there is probably good reason why he was never brought in for anything, and time will tell whether he was on two opposing payrolls.
My favourite post on the whole thread. Amazing. Friendly house searches as a distraction and Marty was a double agent.

Double agents went through meat slicers, like Mr. Nairac

davepoth

29,395 posts

199 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
SMcP114 said:
My favourite post on the whole thread. Amazing. Friendly house searches as a distraction and Marty was a double agent.

Double agents went through meat slicers, like Mr. Nairac
Only when they were caught.

He did some awful things, and sanctioned some awful things. But what I've concluded is that if someone had put a bullet in his head forty years ago there would have been someone else to take his place - dozens maybe.

The fact is that he did come to the table, and he did make the IRA put down their guns. Northern Ireland is at peace now (more or less) as a result. Not many men would or could have done that.

JuniorD

8,626 posts

223 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
For me this handshake is the most significant moment of recent months and will hopefully herald a positive change



thebraketester

14,232 posts

138 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
Such a shame. He was great in Phoenix nights!!

Odhran

579 posts

183 months

Thursday 23rd March 2017
quotequote all
chris390 said:
In the main the British forces were there to support the police and treat both sides in the same manor but there were over the years units set up to work in a fairly isolated way with limited reporting structures, and although there are numerous tin hat stories of their opperations there is little doubt they aided Unionist in various ways and also allowed IRA opperations in order to maintain anonimity of agents in IRA cells. I have no inside information but had a freind in the FRU, pic below.

Of course you do. silly

Mario149

7,755 posts

178 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
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?

This may be a simplistic answer to the question, but for me it is about intent. I'm absolutely certain that on occasion the British Army committed, for want of a better phrase, war crimes (in my opinion it wasn't a war in that sense). And that some excessive force leading to unnecessary civilian casualties was evident. But all that for me is a far, far cry from the IRAs actions of say planting a bomb in say a shopping centre, or pulling over a bus full of random people and shooting them all dead, where the initial intent and ultimate goal is to kill civilians. That's not making an ethical/moral military decision based on collateral damage/civilian risk vs military reward of the operation, that's pure murder. If the IRA had only limited their attacks to soldiers and the odd civilian got caught in the cross fire, that might be understandable and in the subsequent peace, forgivable. Or if the British Army had gone "total war" and started dropping bombs from warplanes onto Catholic areas just because they might contains IRA members. But to my understanding that was manifestly not the case.

Edited by Mario149 on Saturday 25th March 10:39


Edited by Mario149 on Saturday 25th March 10:40

PH XKR

1,761 posts

102 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
Well said Mario.

With this very sudden unexpected death, perhaps our secret services silenced him Dr David Kelly style to shut him up

XCP

16,914 posts

228 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
I think his death has been expected for quite a while, to be fair.

PH XKR

1,761 posts

102 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
ash73 said:
Jimmy Savile's funeral had a good turnout too.
Now then!

Derek Smith

45,661 posts

248 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
. . . (in my opinion it wasn't a war in that sense) . . .

Edited by Mario149 on Saturday 25th March 10:39


Edited by Mario149 on Saturday 25th March 10:40
The PIRA saw themselves as soldiers at war.

To my mind it was a civil war. The fact that the British response was moderate does not lower the threshold.

When compared to other disputes around the world where insurgents are after a part of a country the result has normally been pitched battles. In NI there have been complaints on this thread about early morning searches.

Police searches where a violent, especially potentially deadly, response might be likely are normally conducted in the wee smalls because that lowers the chances of injury, and not only to the searches, but bystanders and suspects as well. On top of that many of these searches were in areas where the suspect might be expected to generate support from locals of similar disposition. Many otherwise mouthy rebels might not be quite so keen when they have to leave the bed after only and hour or so's sleep.

There are many definitions of what constitutes a war. Some suggest it might have something to do with the number of casualties, but that seems nonsensical. The PiRA were after a take-over of a part of the UK and used force as their main weapon.

A war.

The soldiers were there for policing purposes but that did not stop them getting shot on patrol.


MYOB

4,787 posts

138 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
Mario149 said:
This may be a simplistic answer to the question, but for me it is about intent. I'm absolutely certain that on occasion the British Army committed, for want of a better phrase, war crimes (in my opinion it wasn't a war in that sense). And that some excessive force leading to unnecessary civilian casualties was evident. But all that for me is a far, far cry from the IRAs actions of say planting a bomb in say a shopping centre, or pulling over a bus full of random people and shooting them all dead, where the initial intent and ultimate goal is to kill civilians. That's not making an ethical/moral military decision based on collateral damage/civilian risk vs military reward of the operation, that's pure murder. If the IRA had only limited their attacks to soldiers and the odd civilian got caught in the cross fire, that might be understandable and in the subsequent peace, forgivable. Or if the British Army had gone "total war" and started dropping bombs from warplanes onto Catholic areas just because they might contains IRA members. But to my understanding that was manifestly not the case.

Edited by Mario149 on Saturday 25th March 10:39


Edited by Mario149 on Saturday 25th March 10:40
So you're saying the British army didn't kill civilians in Northern Ireland?

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

54 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
MYOB said:
So you're saying the British army didn't kill civilians in Northern Ireland?
If you can read you'll see that she's said the exact opposite of what you just have

MYOB

4,787 posts

138 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
If you can read you'll see that she's said the exact opposite of what you just have
Oops rolleyes

IroningMan

10,154 posts

246 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
SMcP114 said:
Double agents went through meat slicers, like Mr. Nairac
Not much to choose between IRA and ISIS when you're being tortured to death.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

54 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
MYOB said:
Oops rolleyes
Words are hard aren't they?

MYOB

4,787 posts

138 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
Words are hard aren't they?
Have I offended you in any way, shape or form?

No need to be cocky just because I read and replied in haste.

Edited by MYOB on Saturday 25th March 23:20

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

54 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
PH XKR said:
ash73 said:
Jimmy Savile's funeral had a good turnout too.
Now then!

Don't you mean "Now then, now then......"? wink

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

54 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
XCP said:
I think his death has been expected for quite a while, to be fair.
.... and hoped for too, by many.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

54 months

Saturday 25th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
MYOB said:
So you're saying the British army didn't kill civilians in Northern Ireland?
If you can read you'll see that she's said the exact opposite of what you just have

She?

Mario149

7,755 posts

178 months

Sunday 26th March 2017
quotequote all
REALIST123 said:
bmw535i said:
MYOB said:
So you're saying the British army didn't kill civilians in Northern Ireland?
If you can read you'll see that she's said the exact opposite of what you just have

She?
Only on weekends people, only on weekends wink