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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 02:59 PM

The people of England have the same right to break with the Union as the people of Northern Ireland. In the wake of the experience of the attempt to hold Ireland in the Union by force has been learnt. The continuance of the Union is a matter of murual agreement. The UK isn't like tge USA in this respect.

And if the other countries in the EU wished to exclude the UK, while there is no formal provision for expulsion analogous to that which exists for secession, there is a power to suspend membership, and no time limit on that, so it could be permanent. And it would always be possible to establish a New Model EU excluding any undesirable country.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 26 Mar 17 - 07:10 PM

Going back to one of the original questions, let me say this about repentance: Fuck being sorry. I don't care how sorry you are after doing awful things for a long time, over and over. The question to me becomes, what did you DO about it? And I think this guy tried to right the wrongs.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:48 AM

Very true Mrrzy.

In what way has the rest of the UK tried to force Northern Ireland to remain in the Union with the UK Kevin? In December 1922 the whole of Ireland was given it's independence as a united entity, within 24 hours the six counties that formed what we know now as Northern Ireland declared their wish that they wanted no part of a united Ireland governed by Dublin and sought to remain as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, the Act that enabled them to exercise this choice was the 1920 Government of Ireland Act and the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty that ended the Irish War of Independence.

What I support Jim is the right of self-determination, what I support is the rule of law and order, both of which you seem to be against. The people of Northern Ireland will decide THEIR fate and future - not some myth believing fantasist with a gun in one hand and a bomb in the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:01 AM

"the six counties that formed what we know now as Northern Ireland declared their wish that they wanted no part of a united Ireland governed by Dublin"
The six counties did no such thing
The Loyalists from earlier in the century had declared they wanted no part of a United Ireland and they shipped arms and declared that in to ascertain that no event should it ever take place, officers in the British army backed them by declaring they would take no part in enforcing a United Ireland on THE LOYALISTS - (not the Irish people - who at no time were given a chance to express their opinions).
At no time were the North Eastern Irish People consulted over partition until long after it had become a fait accompli and the people as a whole had had a bellyful of violence, both in Ireland and in the European bloodbath.
Since then, the victorious THE LOYALISTS have held sway in the North using repressive sectarian governance and triumphalist sectarian marches to continue to hold six counties for Britain.
It is this continued colonisation by another name that has caused misery, hardship and death in this section of Ireland for nearly a century and it will continue to do so until partition ends.
Personally, I have very little time for national barriers other than for practical purposes - people are people, whichever part of the planet you happen to be on.
Whenever I've travelled in the North, the first thing that comes to mind is that you are surrounded by Irish people living in Ireland, and part of a long and proud Irish heritage.
Throughout British rule, that heritage was crushed almost to destruction, its history was suppressed and re-written to make Ireland part of Britain, and its language and national identity was virtually destroyed.
It took five years of bloody guerrilla warfare to bring about independence for twenty six counties, and the peace that was forced on to Ireland in 1922 brought about another year of equally bloody civil war.
Following the Treaty, the Catholics in the North underwent gatting on for half-a-century's sectarian anti - Catholic oppression (not address here by either of our Blimpish flag-waggers), up to the point that, once again, attempts to get a fair deal for the one third minority brought about open, state supported violent opposition to peaceful protests, led to yet more guerrilla warfare.
It takes a special type of post-Empire mindlessness not to realise that this situation cannot continue indefinitely, but it will go on causing misery and hardship and filling body-bags until the border between North and South is removed and Ireland Ireland's thirty two Counties are recognised as one country.
Britain's latest exercise in Little Englander flag-wagging has caused a sharp about-turn and raised the possibility of Ireland returning to a 'hard-border', so we can look forward to more violence for our kids to sort out - that is our legacy to them.
When will we ever learn?
"Jim"
Always a sign that you are on the ropes for argument Teribus - and you seemed to be trying so hard!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:54 AM

Jim,
Had Easter week not happened Irish Youth would have been decimated on The Somme and Ireland

The "rising" made no difference to the Irish volunteers fighting in the war. They continued to fight and die to the end (but were not "decimated.")

Al,
Keith, some of those guys had already spent years in English jails.

Only one of them ever tried to get elected, and he lost badly.

they were in a better position to gauge the intentions and likely actions of the English establishment of the time than you are

The Irish people did not agree. They showed contempt for the gunmen throughout, even when they were being dragged off to jail.

the attempt to hold Ireland in the Union by force

Never happened. Britain did not want Ireland in the Union but it could not be done while Britain was fighting for its very survival and not winning.
An attempt was made to take the North OUT of the Union by force, against the expressed will of the majority of its people.

Jim,
It is this continued colonisation

It is not colonisation if the people demand to remain in the Union despite not being wanted by the rest of us.


It took five years of bloody guerrilla warfare to bring about independence for twenty six counties,

No it did not. They were going to get it anyway. The law had been passed. The slaughter of thousands was for nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:03 AM

contempt.....

Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse -
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 05:25 AM

We have beeen here Keith
You provideed no evidence for you claims then and you are just repeating what has been said before #
Your attitude and that of Teribius is archaic English racism - an attitude that countries that were once part of the Empire had no right to Independence
You even went as far as claiming that Irish children had been brainwashed to hate Britain, when in fact, any hatred that might have arisen fro a time rose from the fact that newly independent Ireland began to teach the history that had been suppressed under British rule.
Oddly enough - the Irsi do not hate Britain, but when I encounter the archaic views of people like you two, I would fully understand if they did.
Britain not only wanted Ireland in the union but they defended on it as a source of food exports and of profit - so much so that, when millions of Irish were starving, Britain continued to export food out of Ireland and sell it back to the dying at market prices
Throughout the famine, there waqs enough food locked in warehouses guarded by soldiers to feed the starving Irish four times over.
That is a documented fact of history
Britain also need governance over Ireland to ascertain that they had a peaceful neighbour that didn't attempt to seek refvenge for many centuries of oppression - they had no worries on that one - the Irish are far more forgiving of past sins than a nation that is still fighting the Battle of Waterloo via Brexit
Stop this now
If you wish to raise this again, reopen your old ludicrous displays of jingoism on the Famine and Easter week threads.
These matters have all been settled - they really have
Last year you and your mate accused the Irish nation of glorifying mass murder by commemorating The Easter Rising
Any racist could same about St George's Day if they had the feeble mind to do so.
Stop this denigrating of the Irish people - you really have had your five minutes of fame
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:28 AM

"It took five years of bloody guerrilla warfare to bring about independence for twenty six counties, and the peace that was forced on to Ireland in 1922 brought about another year of equally bloody civil war." - Jim Carroll

Identify the period of this epic struggle Jim.

If, as I think it is, you are referring to the period 1916 to 1921 then there was NO five years of bloody guerrilla warfare. You had not quite one week of complete and utter futile lunacy instigated in secret by just seven men in April 1916 that resulted in the destruction of the centre of Dublin followed by three and a quarter years of no fighting at all followed by two and a half years of minor sporadic skirmishing in what is known as the Irish war of independence during which time Ireland was given home rule which the nationalists rejected and the unionists in the north accepted.

This "bloody struggle" as you call it involved less than 0.65% of the population which had attached the following "butcher's bill":

Irish Republican Army ~550 dead

Royal Irish Constabulary 410 dead
British Army 261 dead
Ulster Special Constabulary 43 USC

In addition to the above ~750 civilians died in this two and a half year period, giving a total of ~2014 people killed - the population of Ireland at the time was just over 3 million people. So not really much of a bloody guerrilla war as delusional Jim would have us all believe.

The funny thing is that Jim insists that although the IRA "won" their war of independence a peace treaty was forced upon them, which is of course bullshit. But Jim has previously also insisted that he knows more about what happened in the negotiations than those who actually did take part in them - more delusion in the mind of Jim Carroll - I on the other hand tend to believe the men who were present.

The "men of the gun" (Good old Dev among them) then decided to fight a civil war in the newly created Irish Free State. Irish Republican forces fought against the Irish Nationalist forces who supported the Irish Free State and the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.

This conflict lasted just under 11 months but was much bloodier than the two and a half year war of independence and involved far larger numbers that represented about 3% of the population.

Republican forces numbered ~15,000
Nationalist forces numbered ~58,500

For the 10 months, 3 weeks and 5 days that this idiotic, futile and pointless exercise lasted, precise figures for the dead and wounded have still in 2017 to be fully determined and calculated. The pro-treaty "Nationalist" forces appear to have suffered somewhere between 540–800 fatalities, while the anti-treaty "Republican" forces appear to have received considerably heavier losses. For total combatant and civilian deaths, a minimum of 1,000 and a maximum of 4,000 have been suggested. All done for absolutely NOTHING apart from the wilful destruction by "Republican" forces towards the end of the conflict of Irish Government administrative buildings, commercial properties and vital transport infrastructure. The costs of this idiocy instigated by the "men of the gun" so admired by Jim Carroll amounted to some £50 million pounds that crippled the finances and economy of the fledgling Government of the newly independent Irish Free State with huge debt and resulted in a budget deficit of over £4 million in 1923.

Plain objective truth with regard to your "men of the gun" Carroll is as follows:

1: They fucked up in 1914
2: They fucked up in 1916
3: They fucked up in 1919
4: They fucked up in 1922
5: Had they done nothing at all Ireland would have been an independent united country in 1931.
6: They fucked up in 1939/40
7: They fucked up in 1956
8: They fucked up in 1969
9: Some elements are still determined, against the will and the declared wishes of the people in Ireland, to fuck up yet again claiming the same non-existent mandate claimed previously by the "secret seven" in 1916.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 06:38 AM

Al,
contempt.....

Yes. They were derided with contempt by their fellow Dubliners throughout the "rising" and when they were dragged of to jail.
The eulogising did not start until they were dead.

Jim,
You provideed no evidence for you claims then and you are just repeating what has been said before #

We did supply the evidence. For which claim have you forgotten it?
You can have it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 07:02 AM

"Identify the period of this epic struggle "
Have done so
"Jom."
More insecurity
Enough of this racist, anti-Irish crap - we've taken up far too much space as it is.
Martin McGuinness undoubtedly was part of a terrorist campaign
Terrorism is not a philosophy - it is a tactic resorted to those who feel it necessary to win battles they believe are worthwhile
Moyse Dayan and many Jewish freedom fighters were terrorists, though I doubt if Israel would appreciate them being described as such
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist - today he is remembered worldwide as a great national hero (except that by Thatcherites, of course).
Our history is full of heroes who resorted to extreme measures that could be described as terrorism, in order to bring about justice and freedom
In wartime Europe, the resistance movements in occupied countries, often assisted by British assistance, resorted to terrorist tactics which killed and maimed civilians as well as 'the enemy'.
I've just finished watching SS/GB on television - entertaining fiction, which raises an interesting point.
How far would those opposing Nazism have gone to win back Britain from the Reich?
C J Sansom's ' Dominion raises the same point.
There can be little argument, not even from this pair of jingoists, that partition brought about misery, suffering and hardship and when protests against that situation were greeted with brutality and violence, the Republicans resorted to terrorist tactics.
Personally I am a 'sort of' pacifist - I abhor the taking of human life as an unnatural act, yet I have never been presented with the situation of having to contemplate it.
My father was a pacisfist 'sort of' who went off to Spain to kill Spaniards because he believed that in doing so, it might stop the rise of fascism in Europe.
Terrorism is often a movable feast of a term applied as a matter of convenience to people who quite often are metamorphosed into Nation Heroes by history
Perhaps we might discuss this rather than the racist garbage from this pair which has long sickened me.
My neighbours who commemorated Easter week last year were not celebrating mass murder and it is sick racism to suggest that they were
Finished with this pair of Blimps
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM

'you provided no evidence....'

Jim, evidence providing is bollocks. Keith will provide evidence. he always does. its always bollocks.

the facts of the matter are simple.

Irish republicans have engaged in violent acts in the hope of gaining independence for their country. this has gone on for several centuries without success.

This to any fair minded person would suggest a certain reluctance of England to relinquish their hold on Ireland.

not to Keith. most other people - not to Keith.

its like some people can't work the video recorder - Keith doesn't get it.

Martin McGuiness - the person we're supposed to be discussing. he did get it. he chose to fight. perhaps he was wrong. but it was his life - that's what he did with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 08:22 AM

"Keith will provide evidence"
Actually Al, he has long since ceased providing evidence,
His "real historians who sold their books in "real bookshops" have ling ridden off into the sunset and his "expert witnesses" who back up his racist claims have returned to the Elysian Fields they were conjured up from - I think his attempting to denigrate entire nations was even too rich for their ichor
Now it's jut unqualified statements and denials
I go along with your analysis of the Irish situation, though I suggest that it's a little more complicated than that.
I think the wisest thing I've read about McGuinness was in the Irish Times - "those of us who were too close to the action to make an unbiased analysis may condemn him but only history can judge him fully, and only then, when all the facts are known.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 08:39 AM

Nice obit for McGuinness here:

Morning Star

It neither beatifies nor demonizes him.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:49 AM

Jim,
You provideed no evidence for you claims then and you are just repeating what has been said before #

We did supply the evidence. For which claim have you forgotten it?
You can have it again.

Al, there have always been men of violence but they never had much support.
Sinn Fein campaigned for home rule before WW1.
They could not get elected and went broke for lack of support.

If you choose to ignore the evidence and believe the propaganda, you get a lovely brave story but not what really happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:16 AM

"Irish republicans have engaged in violent acts in the hope of gaining independence for their country. this has gone on for several centuries without success.

This to any fair minded person would suggest a certain reluctance of England to relinquish their hold on Ireland.

not to Keith. most other people - not to Keith.

its like some people can't work the video recorder - Keith doesn't get it." - Big Al Whittle

First paragraph: Not true there has only ever been IIRC three attempts by "Irish Republicans" to gain independence for Ireland. The most constant attempts have been made, mostly peacefully, by Irish Nationalists, who did manage to instigate reforms and improvements over the years. John Redmond's Home Rule efforts had they been allowed by an extremely tiny minority of "Republicans" to proceed, then they would have resulted in the creation in 1931 of a united, independent Ireland without one drop of blood being shed.

A free, united, independent Ireland was declared and came into being on the 6th December 1922, it lasted about 24 hours as the Parliament of Northern Ireland exercised it's right to opt out of a united Ireland governed from Dublin and remain as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. So Big Al it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any reluctance on the part of "England" to relinquish it's hold on Ireland. "England", by the way Big Al, has not existed as a political or national entity since 1707.

It would appear that the only people here who do not get anything are the people who ignore the recorded and well documented history of these events from the perspectives of the three parties concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:19 AM

men of violence never had much support....

do the names Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler...the triumph of the will...

evoke any memories?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 10:26 AM

"A free, united, independent Ireland was declared and came into being on the 6th December 1922, "
Utter historical nonsense
Can you offer something otehr than your owen statement to substantiate this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 11:13 AM

A more accurate harassment of the Treaty would be that Lloyd George forced though its signing under a threat of war if it wasn't signed and in the hands of the Loyalists within three days
Collins summed this up perfectly when he said, "in signing this I am signing my own death warrant" - which was exactly what happened.
Ireland was plunged into Civil Warr immediately the negotiators returned.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 11:49 AM

Keith and Teribus....is history really your thing?

so far we've had the caring side of first world war generals, now England's sefless struggle for Irish independence....

What next!!! Henry VIII and THomas Cromwell innocent of Anne Boleyn's decapitation....evidence of nasty accident with potato peeler.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:07 PM


so far we've had the caring side of first world war generals,

Not from us. Just that they were generally competent and effective.

now England's sefless struggle for Irish independence....

Al, do you not believe that the Home Rule Bill was passed in 1914?
It really was.
You have been mislead by Republican propaganda and rewriting of history.
Everything I have stated is an easily verified fact.

What do you doubt?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:40 PM

"Al, do you not believe that the Home Rule Bill was passed in 1914?
It really was.
"
It most certainly was not - not with agreement of either party - go look up 'The Buckingham Palace Meeting'
The bill was deadlocked - the King called a meeting at Buckingham Palace in July, 1914 and a hurried compromise was mooted but not signed.
The outbreak of War in October caused it to be postponed until the end of the War - the rest is non-history
Go buy yourself a ****** history book, for Christ's sake
You've been told this
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 01:52 PM

BUCKINGHAM PALACE CONFERENCE
Read, mark and inwardly digest Keith
No bill, no agreement
An unverified piece of nonsense
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 04:51 PM

"Decimation" means one on ten being killed. There were approximately 8.6 million British and British Empire servicemen in the Great War. Some 950,000 died. "Decimation" is in fact an understatement, Keith, not an exaggeration. (I haven't tried to separate out the Irish figures here, but I think it's highly unlikely that the proportion of deaths among servicemen was any lower than that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:35 PM

Jim - google Government of Ireland ACT 1914 - you will find it, the ACT means that it had been passed by both Houses of Parliament and that it was on the statute books.

Date of the Buckingham Palace Conference was from 21st to 24th JULY 1914

Date the Irish Home Rule Bill 1914 received Royal Assent and became law was 18th SEPTEMBER 1914.

With the outbreak of World War I on 4 August 1914, Asquith decided to abandon his Amending Bill, and instead rushed through a new bill the Suspensory Act 1914 which was presented for Royal Assent simultaneously with both the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and the Welsh Church Act 1914. Although the two controversial Bills had now finally reached the statute books on 18 September 1914, the Suspensory Act ensured that Home Rule would be postponed for the duration of the conflict and would not come into operation until the end of the war.

Don't argue with me take it up with Hansard and the British Government. As usual you are totally wrong, documented record fact demonstrates this, the fact that you do not accept it only proves how delusional you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 17 - 09:57 PM

On the North of Ireland opting out Jim - it is all here, maps, dates, and land mass:

Northern Ireland Opts Out

Pay particular attention to the Light and Dark Green areas of the map that represented the Irish Free State on the 6th December 1922, then compare that to the Dark Green area of the map that represented the Irish Free State on the 8th December 1922.

Pay attention to the detailed land mass of the Irish Free State until the 8th December 1922 [32,433 sq miles] and then the figure for AFTER 8th December 1922 [27,027 sq miles]

Negotiations took about one year so, so much for your three day ultimatum crap. The war that Lloyd George referred to would not have been a war between Great Britain and the Irish Free State it would have been a civil war in Ireland that would have pitted the Nationalist/Republican South against the Unionist/Loyalist North.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:06 AM

No agreement was reached as Keith suggested, the Treaty was signed at gunpoint and, following the State murder of the rebel leaders, the even the Home Rule Party washed its hands of any agreement and shortly collapsed.
The Brits attempted to bluster though a settlement on behalf of the Loyalists who had demanded that there never be a united Ireland.
Of courrs nobody wanted anything to do with such an agreement other than those it favoured The Loyalists.   
The immediate response to the forced through Treaty was Civil War - even the Free Staters fought on the basis that it was a temporary measure
The agreement was unacceptable to the majority of the Irish People and it was rejected because of that
The outcome was half a century of repressive rule in th North
I wonder (don't) why you andd your mate refuse to refer to the conditions imposed on the Catholic third of the population of the North
If you want to know why the agreement was rejected - it's all there in half a century of repression.
The British have a history of not being trusted.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:33 AM

Kevin, thanks for the correction.
Decimated does not mean just one tenth survive.
11.5% of those mobilised were killed.
(Crimea had a higher rate.)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 04:40 AM

Jim,
No agreement was reached as Keith suggested, the

It was passed by both Houses of Parliament as I stated.
You only need a majority, not unanimous "agreement" Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 05:16 AM

"It was passed by both Houses of Parliament as I stated."
It was not acceptable to the signatories and the Buckingham Palace article stated
It was not acceptable to the Home Rulers in the July 1915 form and any attempts to change it to appease them would not be acceptable to the Loyalists
You cannot have an agreement without the acceptance of both parties unless you are suggesting that Britain had the right to impose it - wouldn't ssurprise me in the least.
You stated crap
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 05:35 AM

Clinging to "decimated" as meaning one-tenth killed is like claiming that "gay" means happy and carefree or that "nice" means subtle or trivial. In any case, the word may have originally had nothing to do with killing or punishing at all, rather meaning "to tithe." When you start to delve a little into the unstoppable evolution of word meanings, you find that word-pedants are often just making fools of themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:07 AM

A master class in Alternative "Facts" - Jim Carroll - 28 Mar 17 - 04:06 AM - totally deluded Jim as always.

Not one single documented fact or account in London, Dublin or in Belfast supports a single thing that you claim.

1: Government of Ireland Act 1914 passed onto the statute books on 18th September, 1914

2: November 1914 the Irish Republican Brotherhood contacts the Germans seeking assistance in planning and carrying out an armed rising.

3: Easter Week Rising in Dublin 1916, instigated by a tiny minority showed already sceptical political leaders and the unionists in the North exactly how "stable" any form of Dublin Government would be. Quite naturally they hardened their attitude to any proposed Home Rule proposal.

4: January 1919 SF declare Independence and the "war of independence" starts in the South. This war is prosecuted by a tiny proportion of the population less than 3%. By July 1921 this "war" has been fought to a stalemate a truce is called and peace negotiations are entered into.

5: Government of Ireland Act 1920 passed into law which offers home rule to both Dublin and Belfast on the understanding that within six years both Parliaments would merge. The actions taking place in the South prompts the Unionists in the North to accept the terms of the 1920 Act they formed their autonomous Parliament in May 1920.

6: Eamon de Valera was too cowardly to attend or be a part of the negotiating team the Irish Government sent to London in 1921. By December 1921 and agreement had been reached and the Treaty was passed by the UK Parliament conditionally that it be passed the Dublin Government, even although the negotiating team had been given full plenipotentiary powers. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was eventually passed by the Dublin Government on the 6th December 1922 (Documented Fact) creating the Irish Free State. As part of that Treaty the Parliament in Belfast had the right within one month of the Treaty coming into effect they could opt out

4: On the 7th December 1922 the Belfast Parliament exercised that option. Probably because a civil war had "kicked off" in the South in July 1922 that would last until May 1923.

By the way Shaw - Decimation - punishment in the Roman Legions where 1 in 10 are executed - the number was considered as being sufficient to punish without affecting the fighting capability of the unit.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:12 AM

"I on the other hand tend to believe the men who were present."

Really? But your track record here is to tell us only to believe the work of recent, living historians. You're not very keen on eye-witness accounts as historical documents. The more recent the historians, the more temporally remote from the action they are. So which is it to be? Or maybe we should believe only you?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:23 AM

Ah, poor Teribus. "Decimate" did not appear as an English word until the 16th century and was derived from the Medieval Latin word "decimatus" which related to tithing, or taking a tenth, nothing to do with punishment or killing. In its earliest uses in English, "decimate" related to taking the tithe more often than it did to the punishment context. "Decimated" today hardly ever relates to the strict sense of killing one tenth and most people who use the word don't use it that way. You cling to it if you like. Maybe Stu could tell us more about dinosaurs like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 07:25 AM

Clinging to "decimated" as meaning one-tenth killed is like claiming that "gay" means happy and carefree or that "nice" means subtle or trivial. In any case, the word may have originally had nothing to do with killing or punishing at all, rather meaning "to tithe." When you start to delve a little into the unstoppable evolution of word meanings, you find that word-pedants are often just making fools of themselves.

The fact that a vocal minority have given a new meaning to an existing word doesn't mean that the old meaning has to be ignored, and cannot still be used.
Also, with "word pedants often making fools of themselves" does that include the pedants who insist that only the 'modern' meaning of words is now acceptable?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:01 AM

"Not one single documented fact or account in London, Dublin or in Belfast supports a single thing that you claim."
You have had this over and over again, along with links
You've been linkeed several times to Lloy'd Gourge's 'sign or in   three days it is war'
Articles above and on earlier threads have been produced ad nauseum that the Loyalists declarerd 'No surrender to Papism' as far back as the Covenant and The fact that the peace was foisted on the Irish People is glaringly obvious from the fact that it plunged Ireland into Civil War
"Government of Ireland Act 1914 passed onto the statute books on 18th September, 1914"
That had not been agreed by the negotiating parties, shown by the fact that the Buckingham Palace Conference ended without agreement
The British Government was one of three sides and had no right to put anything on the statute books without the agreement of the other two.
Easter Week had the full support of the people after it had taken place and the Brits had executed the leaders.
The rest is jingoistic British bullshit
No agreement was reached as you tqwots are claiming - Britain had not the right to declare a settlement without the argreement odf all
Your arrogant Imperialist blustering explaines every single body-bag that has been filled over the last half century - Britain has never accepted the right of any nation it has controlled to self rule either keeping their toe in the door ot facing armed opposition
You pair are racist anachronisms - but a very useful examle of the lingering British Imperial mentality.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:03 AM

my old Latin teacher told me decimating was an extreme sanction of the Roman army. if a legion had not performed well enough in battle - a tenth of their number were slaughtered.

he probably wouldn't have minded decimating our class, as there were several of us incapable of remembering all the lists of words in Kennedys Shorter Latin Primer - which came in a handy size for biffing kids over the head with.

i presume joe gledhill had some classical reference to back up his gory tale - he usually had.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Mar 17 - 08:07 AM

Just a reminder Teribus - you still appear to believe that you can bully and bluster your archaic history without producing a single documanted fact t back it up
For Christs sake grow up and act like an adult - bullies and bullshitters are for closing time - doesn't work here
Jim Carroll