BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:54 PM

WW1 was a war of attrition and even those Irish who volunteered caimed that they were put in the most dangerous positions when fighting
Ireland had lost so many in the famine, though starvation, disease and through the emigrations, to sacrifice so many would, as I said, have made Ireland unsustainable as a nation.
It would have been obsecen to involve Ireland, who had fought for centuries to rid itself of British rule, to force young Irishmen to fight and die fot the very Empire they were trying to free themselves from - even with the limited Home Rule concessions.
We've dealt with all this over and over again and you remained a couple up shit's creek without a paddle last time
Now you are trying to reopen the same subject - on your own again.
"The "men of the gun" "
I don't suppose you mean the Loyalists - that's who they were in the 20th century
You seem quite happy to support them: " got the shock of their lives when they found out that the North would fight to maintain their ties with the UK" yet prepared to condemn republicans who fight for civil right or whatever - almost as 'fair minded and even handed' as the way the six counties were set up as a Protestant state, I would say - how about you?
No need to ask which side you are on, is there?
This thread is bout McGuinness who did more than any other to bring the warring sides to the conference table - that's how much he had to "do with it"
Little Englander Brexit stands to knock that work back decades.
Have we finished with the 'Links with London' but than?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:44 PM

Keith, some of those guys had already spent years in English jails. I really do think they were in a better position to gauge the intentions and likely actions of the English establishment of the time than you are - even allowing for your fierce interest, and doubtless intelligent weighing of the evidence.

its the sort of difference between the crap that schools inspectors write and the realities of life in the classroom. the business end of human experience is always - just different.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:36 PM

Taking decimation in it's literal sense, i.e. "one-in-ten" then that is almost exactly what did happen to those fighting in the British, Commonwealth and Empire Armies during both the First and Second World Wars.

So your: "Had Easter week not happened Irish Youth would have been decimated on The Somme and Ireland would have been unsustainable as a nation"

The losses suffered by the British, Commonwealth and Empire forces did not result in any losses that could ever be remotely described as unsustainable - so from you this is just more over emotive claptrap based on total ignorance.

Elsewhere the French, Germans and Russians lost even more - and that did not result in any "unsustainability" - quite the contrary within 20 years they were all ready to start all over again.

The "men of the gun" in Irish history and in the "fight" for Irish Independence and Unity have only ever succeeded in demonstrating their unerring skill and abilities at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In 2016 you were further away from achieving a united Ireland than you were in 2014 and the real irony is that it may well be Brexit that eventually does lay the ground for unity and the "men of the gun" will have had S.F.A. to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:03 PM

"No, but home rule was going to happen anyway."
No it wasn't
Once again, we've been through this
Had Easter week not happened Irish Youth would have been decimated on The Somme and Ireland would have been unsustainable as a nation - you've had Lloyd George's statement
Immediately the Irish realised the brutal nature of Britain the rebels gotr their mandate.
As with Independence, Britain was not to be trusted
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:35 PM

Al,
so your contention is that Connolly, Pearse et al. - their intention was to impede the British government's intention to grant independence.

No, but home rule was going to happen anyway.
There was no need for violence, and they had no mandate or support from the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:33 PM

There you go - the demnds of the Civil Rights Marches that were met with such violence - nuffin to do with Links to London
Jim Carroll

01: Civil Rights Movement 1968-69
In 1968 the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement became international news.
In October 1968, when television pictures of RUC officers baton-charging a civil rights demonstration in Derry were shown around the world, the Northern Ireland civil rights movement became international news.
This push for civil rights was backed by a wide range of political and social activists. It was influenced by television coverage of the black civil rights protests in America and the student protest movement across Europe. The main areas where reforms were sought were: the allocation of public housing, a "one man, one vote" electoral system, fair employment practices in the public service and a restructuring of the RUC. With the population of Northern Ireland divided two-thirds Protestant and one-third Catholic, it was the minority who felt the brunt of discrimination. Public housing was granted by local government authorities, and there was much evidence of discrimination against the Catholic population by local councils in the allocation of houses. Prior to 1969, elections were not held on a "one person, one vote" basis, and gerrymandering was used to secure unionist majorities on local councils.
Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating geographic boundaries in order to gain political advantage and influence a desired electoral result.
In 1963, Terence O'Neill became Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Seen as a moderate unionist, he set about reforming the economy. He also expressed a desire to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and create a better rapport with the government in Dublin, hoping this would address the sense of alienation felt by Catholics towards the political system in Northern Ireland. However, reforms were too slow in coming for the minority Catholic population, and O'Neill's meeting with the Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, in 1965 raised the ire of loyalists led by the Reverend Ian Paisley. Within his own Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), O'Neill also met with opposition from William Craig and Brian Faulkner.
From the autumn of 1968 onwards, a wide range of activists marched behind the civil rights banner, adopting civil disobedience in an attempt to secure their goals. Housing activists, socialists, nationalists, unionists, republicans, students, trade unionists and political representatives came together across the North. Many of the protesters were bright young university educated Catholics, who had been able to avail of the free education brought in by the 1949 Education Act. This movement attempted to bring a new dynamic to Northern Ireland politics. The demand for basic civil rights from the Northern Ireland government was an effort to move the traditional fault-lines away from the familiar Catholic-Protestant, nationalist-unionist, republican-loyalist and Irish-British divides by demanding basic rights for all citizens of Britain. However, as the civil rights campaign gained momentum, so too did loyalist opposition. Heightened sectarian tension became more difficult to control, and civil disobedience events began to descend into occasions of civil disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 01:18 PM

A very partisan view of Irish history Teribus
The 'Men of the Gun' were the Loyalists (not the Irish people, Catholic or Protestant) who introduced the gun into twentieth century Irish politics.
The same Loyalists also struck the first terrorist blow in the 1960s.
The Civil Rights movement that was brutally battered into silence by the Loyalists with the assistance of the R.U.C. had nothing whatever to do with "maintaining their ties with the UK" - it was a peaceful demand for equal rights and opportunities fro the Catholic third of the population of the Six Counties.
You might as well have added to your diatribe "This has been a broadcast on behalf of the Loyalists of Post-Empire Britain
It bears no reality to to the situation that gave rise to the Troubles.
I suggest you read a book rather than official British bulletins.
Jim Carroll

THE CREATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE IRISH BORDER
KJ Rankin
"Plans to include all of Ulster's nine counties in the new "Northern Ireland" with a view to facilitating future unity was effectively vetoed by Ulster unionists who were keen to procure a secure 2:1 majority in six counties than handle a slender and precarious 9:7 balance. However, with the Act being virtually ignored in the rest of Ireland, the boundary was not quite secured. The 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty endowed the Border with a temporary and qualified recognition but established a disparity between
a devolved government within the United Kingdom and the newly autonomous
Dominion of the Irish Free State.
The provision for the Boundary Commission had been agreed by the Irish negotiators upon the logic that reducing Northern Ireland's territory would hasten its disintegration and subsequent prospects for unity. This was grossly simplistic and arguably counter-productive in that reducing Northern Ireland's would inevitably create a stronger unionist majority and fallacious to equate territorial with economic viability.
The initial tactical advantage offered by the Boundary Commission was converted into a potentially devastating political liability.
The Boundary Commission saga confirmed the territorial framework of Northern Ireland as it exists today and with it transferred attention to constitutional rather than territorial structures. The Irish Border can understandably be regarded as symbolising the conflict between unionism and nationalism, but it is also an archetypal example of the interplay between politics and geography whereby abstract political concepts are applied in different spatial scales.
https://www.qub.ac.uk/research-centres/CentreforInternationalBordersResearch/Publications/WorkingPapers/MappingFrontiersworkingpapers/Filetoupload,175395,en.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 12:28 PM

At point of a gun or by the bombing a civilian population in acts of terrorism you can slice off part of a country, or part of an empire and create a new entity. What you cannot do at the point of a gun or by the use of bombs is force unification to create a new entity. The latter is what the "men of the gun" in Irish politics have been trying since 1914 when a tiny minority of them secretly approached the Germans to request assistance to achieve their goal. Had, as Keith A stated, the Irish nationalists waited until the end of the "Great War", the Home Rule Act would have been implemented and Ireland would have ended up as a united, independent sovereign state in 1931. Instead the "men of the gun" opted for war, first with the British, then with each other. History repeated itself when the Second World War came along and the IRA (An illegal organisation in Eire) forged links with the Nazis to try and united North and South (They failed - Dev introduced non-jury trials and internment to stop them), they tried again in 1950s border campaign and their "Volunteers" got the shock of their lives when they found out that the North would fight to maintain their ties with the UK, the campaign ended in total failure, apart for rather spectacular and well planned and executed raid early on, the "campaign" was a complete and utter farce. In the troubles the NI Human Rights Campaign had the total backing and support of the people in the UK, for once the "Official" IRA saw that and took the decision to stand to one side, a view not shared by some members who formed the "Provisional" IRA, so the "men of the gun" had another go at forced unification of Ireland - and again the failed spectacularly - the Republic of Ireland dropped it's constitutional territorial claim on the North.

Brexit might just achieve what decades of violence totally failed to - let's wait and see. As far as British Policy goes - they've been trying to get rid of Ireland since the mid 1800s. If the North finds that their interests are best served maintaining open trading links with the Republic then they can call for a referendum anytime they wish - no-one would stand in their way. Having had that referendum and for arguments sake we'll say that they opted to join the Republic, then a second referendum in the Republic would be held to agree to the North becoming part of a united Republic of Ireland. Interesting times.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 10:46 AM

this is indeed a revolutionary view of things Keith.

"Revolutionary"? Is that defined as "idiotic"?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:58 AM

You need to remember that the struggle was not one between religious groups bu on of National Self Determination and just as some Catholics were happy to stay as part of Britain, just as many Protestants wished to Govern themselves as Irish
The set-up may have worked as a temporary measure if the question of religion had not been introduced into the equation by The Covenant
Finishes with this Keith until you start arguing on the basis of history and not from a pro-establishment English point of view
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:23 AM

"Don't be silly. Everyone knows where the nationalist and unionist communities are located."
Nonsense - they drew up the borders without consulting them
Only the militant loyalists had stated that they wished to remain in Britain - there was never at anytime a nationwide consultation as to what the people of the six counties wanted - the only voice was that of the militantly aggressive Loyalists
Many protestant had fought for and demanded a United Ireland- some of the great nationalist leaders were Protestants
WOLFE TONE is considered the father of Irish Nationalism
The people were never at any time consulted - the British colluded to form a Protestant state and the leaders of that State set up an administration that deliberately created a class system devided on religious lines.
You have the nuts and bolts of how they went about it
Rather than just dismissing that information, why not dispute it with facts of your own?
We have been over this hundreds of times and tyou have never moved from your bigoted support of the Loyalist view - that is what brought about the deaths of so many people and will continue to do so while it persists.
The 'rising' led to the War of Independence, which on the one hand kept
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 08:18 AM

this is indeed a revolutionary view of things Keith.

so your contention is that Connolly, Pearse et al. - their intention was to impede the British government's intention to grant independence.

well....i suppose its a point of view...

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 04:22 AM

Jim,
To make such yor ridiculous claim possible would require a referendum

Don't be silly. Everyone knows where the nationalist and unionist communities are located.
Villages and towns that were mostly Nationalist would want to be outside the line.
Those that were Unionist would want to be inside.

The line was drawn to satisfy as many as possible.

Thompson,
They were never going to allow Home Rule to come into being.

No-one could have stopped it. It had been passed into law. They could have had a united Ireland and home rule leading to full independence without any murders or any civil war.

The "Rising" was utterly unnecessary and counter productive.

Kevin,
The decision to end the union with Europe didn't require getting the agreement of other Europeans,

Yes, but the rest of Europe could not have voted us out, any more than the rest of Britain could vote out Scotland, N.I. or Wales.

The peoples of those countries are entitled to self determination.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 08:05 PM

"They were never going to allow Home Rule to come into being."
To ascertain this, in 1929, having gerrymandered a Protestant majority and declared that the North would be a Protestant State, they abandoned the Proportional Representation system of voting and installed a first past the post system, this way making sure that the Catholics had no say in the running of the State.
Additiuonally, under this system, Catholics were disadvantaged further when it came to the vote because of the property ownership restrictions to elections (see below description)
Jim Carroll

The commonly understood impetus for civil rights grievances is the way unionists dominated government in Northern Ireland after partition in 1921. Under the devolved Stormont regime, anti-Catholic discrimination occurred in private and public employment and public services, particularly those provided by local councils. Although some debate the character of the postpartition state in both politics and scholarship, a broad consensus agrees that, from 1921 to 1968, the devolved political system supported and legitimated widespread discrimination against the Catholic minority (e.g., Darby 1976; Whyte 1983).
State discrimination was most pronounced in local government. Local authorities preferentially allocated public housing to Protestants, and the system for voting in local elections meant housing discrimination had electoral consequences. That is, under Northern Irish voting laws, only "ratepayers"— either property owners or public housing tenants, both of whom paid a local property tax called "rates"—or their nominated representatives could vote in local elections. Private tenants did not pay rates—their landlords did—so these tenants were not automatically entitled to a local council vote. These rules applied only to local council elections; all adults were enfranchised for Northern Irish and UK parliamentary elections. Yet this system, combined with discrimination against Catholics in public housing, amplified the political representation of unionism. Ratepayers' provisions also entitled owners of commercial property to nominate special voters (non-ratepayers) for each £10 ($28) value of the property, for up to six voters.2 Given disproportionate Protestant ownership of commercial property, this, too, increased unionists' political representation (see Darby 1976). Furthermore, the practice nurtured a culture of patronage within unionism, as non-ratepaying Protestants were dependent on properly owners for nominations lo vote in local council elections. There was also a pattern of gerrymandering, whereby electoral boundaries were drawn to ensure unionist dominance, most strikingly in Derry. Policing and justice also operated in a biased fashion, with the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act 1922 allowing internment without trial.'
Brice Dickson (2010), a respected human rights scholar and advocate (he was a founding member of the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the former head of the Human Rights Commission), makes clear the underlying difficulty of approaching Stormont's repressions as human rights violations. Although these practices disenfranchised the minority, he explains, international frameworks that define human rights do not prescribe particular political or voting arrangements. In this sense, these frameworks offer limited tools. For Dickson (2010), stretching human rights principles to denounce the Stormont regimes practices obscures the essentially political nature of its abuses (15). Extending this observation helps clarify a central insight: rights conflicts were political from the moment of their emergence in Northern Ireland. Broader narratives took longer to emerge, such as identifying human rights violations as causes of conflict or, later, human rights culture as a cause of peace.
In the 1960s, however, political and economic shifts occurring through¬out western Europe dramatically changed the regions politics. A growing Catholic middle class and radicalized university students (from both Catho¬lic and Protestant backgrounds) challenged the regions governance. 'The civil rights movement they created, and opposition to it, became a catalyst, rather than a simple cause, for the conflict. The local movement combined tactics from both the U.S. civil rights movement and European student uprisings. These tactics were introduced at a moment of increasing local tensions, as nationalists and unionists, respectively, celebrated the fiftieth anniversaries the Easter Rising and the World War I Battle of the Somme.4

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:29 PM

Keith A, if politics had stood still during the war, you'd be right. But in 1915 the Liberal government (Home Rule was a Liberal project) collapsed, and was replaced by a coalition dominated by the Conservative and Unionist Party. They were never going to allow Home Rule to come into being.
And what's this about "the fools, the fools" - they fought for and got full independence, a full and free Republic, rather than the county council status that Home Rule would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:54 PM

THERE YOU GO
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:04 PM

well according to you Keith, they have avoided the 'punishment' since 1919.

make yer bleedin' mind up!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:23 PM

The decision to end the union with Europe didn't require getting the agreement of other Europeans, even the ones living and working and paying taxes here. It didn't even require consulting with them.

It would be perfectly possible for Westminster to end the union with Northern Ireland. Why we could even have a referendum about it - then, if England voted heavily enough in favour, we could ignore whatever they thought about it in Northern Ireland. After all, there's a precedent for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:20 PM

"No Jim. The Unionist community wanted to be in and the Nationalists wanted to be out, so the line was drawn to please as many people as possible."
Gerrymandering is a fact -
To make such yor ridiculous claim possible would require a referendum
The original decision was to partition the whole of Ulster in line with the Loyalist demand "Ulster says No"
They did the math and realised the other three counties would give a majority to the 'Taigs' so they dropped three - simple s that.
How do you claim the will of the people was sought - issuing mobile phones maybe
Please do not be stupid
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:20 PM

"No Jim. The Unionist community wanted to be in and the Nationalists wanted to be out, so the line was drawn to please as many people as possible."
Gerrymandering is a fact -
To make such yor ridiculous claim possible would require a referendum
The original decision was to partition the whole of Ulster in line with the Loyalist demand "Ulster says No"
They did the math and realised the other three counties would give a majority to the 'Taigs' so they dropped three - simple s that.
How do you claim the will of the people was sought - issuing mobile phones maybe
Please do not be stupid
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
Britain carefully chose the six counties to give them a Protestant majority - that's why we never refer to them as "Ulster" - three counties were deliberately excluded afiet Britain had don her sums
That is deliberately building in inequality into a State - Gerrymandering, to give it its correct title

No Jim. The Unionist community wanted to be in and the Nationalists wanted to be out, so the line was drawn to please as many people as possible.
Consideration, to give it its correct title.

Thompson,
Keith A, a small correction, if you wouldn't mind. The British Parliament did indeed pass the Home Rule Bill in 1914 - but it was then shelved until the end of the war; it was never enacted fully.

The fact that it was passed proves that Britain did not want any of Ireland.
It would have been enacted but for the pointless and unnecessary 1916 "Rising" (when hardly anyone rose.)

Had they just waited for the war to end (and their boys come home) decades of bloodshed would have been saved and a United Ireland achieved early in 1919.
The fools the fools.

Al,
frankly no. they forfeited that right cos they couldn't behave themselves.

Every person? Collective punishment?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 01:13 PM

'Al, would you not allow the people of NI themselves to choose their form of governance?'

frankly no. they forfeited that right cos they couldn't behave themselves.

as Jim points out - the situation was artificial. but it has to be said - all the paraphernalia of democracy and a free press was open to them. they could have shouted louder.

but both sides went, no! sod that! we'd rather kill each other.

government or governance - whatever that means, its a bit like teaching. it implies an act of cooperation, a willingness to be governed. in Northern Ireland that act of cooperation with the parliament in London was missing.
what you require of the participants, ironically particularly the ones calling themselves loyalists is impossible. just face the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:59 PM

Keith A, a small correction, if you wouldn't mind. The British Parliament did indeed pass the Home Rule Bill in 1914 - but it was then shelved until the end of the war; it was never enacted fully.
However, if you read it, it's not the kind of devolution that people imagine - it was a very limited thing, basically allowing Ireland to have a kind of county council level representation. All real power remained with London.
And in Northern Ireland to this day, there is a hate-filled tiny minority who burn effigies of people like Martin McGuinness and burn Ireland's national flag on the night of 11/12 July every year, to celebrate a battle that took place in 1690?

Might I mention that this discussion should really be separated out from a thread about the recent death of someone, which should be limited to RIPs?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:22 PM

Jim, I fear you are wasting your time trying to educate some people on here as to the history and geography of Ireland, they simply do not want to know or understand the various issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:34 AM

"Al, would you not allow the people of NI themselves to choose their form of governance?"
No people has the right to choose a Government that persecutes and discriminates against a large section of the population - we are learning that with Trump
Britain carefully chose the six counties to give them a Protestant majority - that's why we never refer to them as "Ulster" - three counties were deliberately excluded afiet Britain had don her sums
That is deliberately building in inequality into a State - Gerrymandering, to give it its correct title
The Troubles were Britain's chickens coming home to roost
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:01 AM

Al, would you not allow the people of NI themselves to choose their form of governance?
It is not any "uppercrust elite" but ordinary people like us.
Would you force them out at gun point, as the IRA tried?
I would not want to be part of such fascist aggression.

Jim,
THe six counties have been moving towards an Catholic/Protestant equality situation fro some time now.
It seem Brexit has pipped it at the post and removed many of the obstacles for a long needed United Ireland

Let's hope so Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 10:15 AM

Could I suggest that the right wingers on here read "Those are real bullets, aren't they" by Peter Pringle and Phillip Jacobson.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 09:00 AM

in truth - theres plenty to be frightened of. i don't blame anybody for not wanting to confront their fears.

but when the past holds so much bad stuff - surely its better to try for something new.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:46 AM

"only the entrenched attitudes of frightened people."
From what I can ake out Stu, apathy has played a large part in it - doesn't it always?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM

"It seem Brexit has pipped it at the post and removed many of the obstacles for a long needed United Ireland"

There have been no obstacles in place since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, only the entrenched attitudes of frightened people.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:05 AM

THe six counties have been moving towards an Catholic/Protestant equality situation fro some time now.
It seem Brexit has pipped it at the post and removed many of the obstacles for a long needed United Ireland
Funny old world
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 06:32 AM

yes but its our country. if we don't want them, as you say. everything points to the fact that the public will is being thwarted on this subject by an uppercrust elite.

its about time wedid something about it and kicked them out.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:47 AM

we don't need the acquiesence of the the people of Northern Ireland. Surely its up to the people of the United KIngdom, who we invite in.

Yes, but NI is already in.
They are entitled to self determination, as are the peoples of Wales and Scotland (and England).

Only the Scots were consulted over whether they should leave or stay, not the whole UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:18 AM

but what is really stopping us kicking NI out of the United KIngdom tomorrow?

Just that up to now they did not want to go, and were prepared to fight to stay in.
Like Scotland it requires a 1% majority.

Talk of colonialism and empire is just Republican propaganda. Lies.
The British Parliament passed the Home Rule Bill for the whole island in 1914. We did not want any of it then and never have since.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:10 AM

ignorance - a funny word.

i'm sure we all ignore. what we don't want to think abouut.

but what is really stopping us kicking NI out of the United KIngdom tomorrow?

i've heard it said, we would have Beirut on our doorstep.....possible, i suppose. certainly we couldn't make Ireland unite if it didn't want to. anyway - it wouldn't be our concern. no more English troops sacrificed. they could all be merry little Europeans, without wicked old British empire.

i suppose in many ways what the violence achieved was that it made NI an unattractive place in which to in vest for many years. but to get rid of NI then would have been to reward violence. now would be a good time.

we don't need the acquiesence of the the people of Northern Ireland. Surely its up to the people of the United KIngdom, who we invite in.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM

Poor Keith. Him and his old buddies, standing on the sidelines shouting at a world that's leaving them behind, unable to comprehend the fact their empire is dead and we're now nothing more than an increasingly marginalised collection of small countries whose union is fracturing down nationalistic lines due to the fact the old folk trashed the future with Brexit.

Their spittle-flecked invective is witless, sad and dull to endure.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:02 AM

I said I wasn't going to turn this into a head-to-head Keith but I am grateful for your display of ignorance of Britain's oldest colony.
While such attitudes exist we will still be counting the body bags.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:41 AM

we had nicked the industrial heartland of the country.

We did not nick it. We did not want it even then.
The British government wanted it gone but the army refused to fight them to make them go, and the Irish army could not fight them to force them in.
We were stuck with them.
Maybe Brexit will finally rid us of the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:54 PM

'the Tories would have been delighted to be rid of NI as would every other party and the whole population of mainland UK.'

i don't think the evidence bears that out. the monied classes had a lot invested in NI. in fact that was one of the 1916's lot main bone of contention - we had nicked the industrial heartland of the country.

if there was the political will to get them to bugger off, theres all kinds of ways we could have tipped them the black spot. made subtle differences between the two countries that would have built up. - - like the fuss about them wearing prison uniforms. if we really didn't give a shit - we could have said, yeh whatever it takes for you to shut up. instead we had the hunger strikes. . and Thatcher's intransigence.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:19 PM

Whatever party was in power in UK, they could not force NI out of the Union without at least a 1% majority of the NI electorate, and that was unachievable.

Even though Unionist was in their name, the Tories would have been delighted to be rid of NI as would every other party and the whole population of mainland UK.
The problem was persuading them to vote for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:46 PM

all true Jim.
the conservative party was still at that point (round 1967 say...) the conservative party the conservative and unionist party. there can be little doubt which side the english establishment were on.

However - they weren't the party in power. plus i think many english people were genuinely repelled by the violence of Ian Paisley's rhetoric. Although in truth, I will admit very few of us could have told with any certainty what he was on about! But he sounded like trouble, and english people don't like that.

Adams and Martin McG were very young and full of 1916 rhetoric. McG was younger than me. at that age i was screwing up my first teaching practice. i don't think its really fair to expect wisdom from the young. i'm not sure its all that clever to be justifying them. certainly failing the teaching practice was my fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:44 PM

Jim,
"It did work."
No it didn't Keith

Yes it did. All the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association were met, but that was never the issue for the IRAs.

They intended to force NI out of the UK against the will of the majority of its people by violence, intimidation, murder, bombing and shooting.

McGuinness said,"it would be the cutting edge of the IRA rather than the ballot box that would remove the Brit presence from Ireland "

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:21 PM

It strikes me that the English establishment suffers from two major failings
They live in the past and they are incapable of learning from it
Write that down - it's a gem
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 12:55 PM

"It did work."
No it didn't Keith - the Loyalists were forced to the conference table, as were the Brits by Easter Week and the War of Independence - it would never have happened otherwise, as the responses to the Civil Rights marches proved.
The six counties were an oppressive set up by Britain which led to nearly half a century of inequality and injustice.
Anti Catholic riots were a regular feature of life, voting determined by property ownership and, in the times of unemployment, work only if you kicked with the 'right' foot.
All this is documented, as is the fact that, once afgain, the first signs of violence cam from the loyalists, and the compliance by the forces of 'law and order' and the Protestants to maintain the status quo
You are fully aware of this, or if you are not, you have never followed up the information you have been given in previous arguments
I have no intention of making this another head-to-head with you.
Please respond to what has been put up - we really have been here far too often before
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 11:24 AM

This is a fascinating thread and I am grateful for the range and fierceness of it. I am not Irish, I am not Catholic, nor Protestant, but I am from Boston and in my elementary school days there were more Brians than Roberts in my classes. I've spent time in Ireland and read plenty of literature that is adorned with Irish thought and perspective. The Irish have had a major impact on my country and me. So this thread speaks to me.
I think when people exhibit a capacity and commitment to change, that puts them above the average level of behavior.
I also remember a saying that it is good to bury the hatchet, but no one forgets WHERE it's buried.
It is easy to enumerate the dead and their numbers, and harder to note the cases where people are not killed.
I visited Eason's in Dublin and bought a bunch of books to ship home. The title of one of them: "It's handy when people don't die."

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 10:53 AM

Jim,
Rightly or wrongly, the Catholics decided that peaceful persuasion was not going to work - especially as the Loyalists had already introduced violence into the equation.

It did work. Public opinion nationally was on their side. The national government took control, disbanded the B Specials, instituted equal rights for all, and sent troops to protect the Nationalist community from the sectarian attacks.

The "armed struggle" achieved nothing but decades of death and misery.

Dave, I did not speculate about McG's policies, I just applied them to the American Civil Rights situation which despite what Jim claims was a fair comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 09:31 AM

Comparing Ireland to the US Civil Rights Movement is facile
In the US, the Southern blacks were fighting for a right that had already been granted to the rest of America
There was never any question that the southern administrations would offer armed resistance to those demands.
In Ireland, the protests had already been met with violence from the Loyalists which had been backed by the 'forced of law ang order' and ignored by Britain.
Rightly or wrongly, the Catholics decided that peaceful persuasion was not going to work - especially as the Loyalists had already introduced violence into the equation.
It needs to be remembered that those who fought remembered tat the British state had executed the leaders of 1916 and Independence (of a sort) was only finally won by taking up arms.
It is nonsense to claim that Britain was there to keep the peace - the collusion with the Loyalists makes it quite clear which horse they had decided to back
Whatever your take on the violence (from all sides), that is what brought the sides to the conference table and nobody disputes that fact
It is often forgotten that there was another war of independence against British rule 20-odd years earlier that also involved violence and terrorism, but I doubt if those choosing to condemn outright what happened in Ireland would take the same stance on what happened elsewhere in the 1940s
In the end, all of these occurences are directly traceable back to The British Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 07:56 AM

If Martin McGuinness had met Martin Luther King...

I don't think he did, did he? Such speculation has no relevance and the sentiment that follows that speculation does nothing to further the peace process nor address Eliza's points.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

i totally agree with everything Jim has said in that last post.

history is still being written on the subject of Ireland. and we, by virtue of our historical context - our view is skewed and imperfect.

i should be able to understand a guy like Martin McGuinness - but I don't. My family had Irish republican connections right into the 1930's.
To me - he and Adams appeared to have a free press, access to democratic process - however imperfect - but compared to people in Putin's Russia, they had an open goal. it seemed to me (reading their own accounts of the Cheyne House talks) - they had the sympathetic ear of the most left wing government that England has ever had - and they rejected it to choose violence.

but obviously that's because i was in England, and i didn't understand their point of view. and whatever they say - you can't walk a mile in another man's shoes. the facts of the situation are just not available and really its no use worrying at it like a dog at a bone.

he did what he did, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:08 AM

If Martin McGuinness had met Martin Luther King, he would have advised him and to abandon the peaceful, dignified protests that led to full civil rights within a few years, and to start exploding huge bombs in malls, bars and bus stations, and to shoot policemen and National Guard in the streets and in their homes on or off duty.
In NI that policy drove the communities even further apart and delayed a peaceful, equitable settlement for half a century.
We could have had it in the 70s.

The number of deaths, scaled up to the US population, would be comparable to the Civil War.