Martin McGuinness RIP

[Betsy Og]

Bit of a shock this morning, hadn't been following the story lately but didn't think he was terminally ill or that it would be this quick. I started by reading the victims & families reaction, understandably many want to point out some grim realities, and there's no arguing with that.

One point that comes through in many articles, and which I'd agree with, is that in fairness to him when he did turn the corner he did seem to give it his all in the pursuit of peace and, current Stormont wrangles notwithstanding, that has been a remarkable success. Also probably fair to say that his militarist background (as opposed to Gerry who only did cake sales, that sort of thing...) was significant in minimising the split when SF/IRA went on the path to peace.

Many saying the truth has died with him - not sure how much of that is really the case - was there that much he alone knew? There's also the possibility that he has given info to a family member or whoever to contribute to a possible future truth & reconciliation process. But I guess if there's ever to be such a process they'd want to get cracking in the next 5-10 years or a lot of the 'actors' will have departed.

A really bad week for Derry it has to be said, condolences to both families (& all victims families too).

 

[Ceist Beag]

Nicely put Betsy. I think history will remember him more for the good work he did in the peace process but it is important to remember the victims and their families too. I think Colin Parry was quite fair in this tribute to Martin. I think there can be no arguing that he was a hugely significant player in the North and that once he did turn the corner as you say, he achieved a lot of good for the people of Northern Ireland.

RIP Martin.

 

[thedaddyman]

Mixed views on him to be honest. Speaking as someone who had his office desk blown to pieces in the Bishopsgate bombing and who heard 2 other bombs go off when I lived there, (one only a hundred yards away on the next street) I'm not prone to much sympathy for anyone from the IRA.

However I admire the fact that McGuiness accepted that what they were doing was wrong and his part in the peace process was vital and how he changed as a person. He is a fundamental reason why Northern Ireland has changed beyond recognition in the last 10-15 years and that deserves a lot of respect. I do wish though that he and the rest of his comrades could have been more open and honest about their part in "the struggle". There are a lot of families here, in the North and in GB who have been denied closure as a result.

 

[cremeegg]

However I admire the fact that McGuiness accepted that what they were doing was wrong

I am not sure that he did. He recognised that it was unproductive, that it was not achieving his objectives, that it was causing hurt to many people. My understanding is that he never said that the actions of the IRA before the ceasefires were wrong.

For my part I think he was a great man. He had vision, which he pursued tirelessly, and he persuaded other to that vision. Great improvements came about to life in Northern Ireland, and he was a major element in that change.

 

[thedaddyman]

I am not sure that he did. He recognised that it was unproductive, that it was not achieving his objectives, that it was causing hurt to many people. My understanding is that he never said that the actions of the IRA before the ceasefires were wrong.

For my part I think he was a great man. He had vision, which he pursued tirelessly, and he persuaded other to that vision. Great improvements came about to life in Northern Ireland, and he was a major element in that change.

Wrong could indeed mean ineffective and unproductive. He had a vision in the 2nd half of his career but we should not forget when we eulogise him that he also had a vision in the first half of his life which was very different and people died because of that first vision which he and others had.

 

[Vanessa]

At least he had the honesty to admit his IRA involvement unlike Pinnochio

 

[Betsy Og]

I note in any commentary from "the other side" there's zero acknowledgement of the initial causes of the conflict. You'd swear everything was dandy until the IRA started shooting and bombing. Another assessment might say it was so horribly mismanaged at every step that it was inevitable something was going to have to give. But anway....... we're better now.......

 

[Vanessa]

I note in any commentary from "the other side" there's zero acknowledgement of the initial causes of the conflict. You'd swear everything was dandy until the IRA started shooting and bombing. Another assessment might say it was so horribly mismanaged at every step that it was inevitable something was going to have to give. But anway....... we're better now.......

There was a British policy in the late 19th century called "killing Home Rule with kindness" which led to Land Reform Education reform etc in Ireland. It was reasonably successful in so much as Home Rule demand died for some time. Admittedly the Parnellite split and the fact that the Irish Party did not hold the balance of power were also very important factors.
If after 1922 the Unionist majority had the foresight to treat the minority equally in housing employment education it is likely that Northern Ireland would not have gone the way it did. Westminster washed it hands of the North after 1922 and the South was too busy killing each other to do anything

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

If after 1922 the Unionist majority had the foresight to treat the minority equally in housing employment education it is likely that Northern Ireland would not have gone the way it did.

Saw an interesting clip of Martin. This is long after the equality agenda had been more or less implemented in NI. He was arguing that the political path (which he was then following) was not enough. It needed the "cutting edge of the IRA to force an all Ireland socialist republic", his words. Possibly if unionists had the courage to ignore nationalist hostility the likes of Martin would never have had a chance to wage such a long war, who knows? But I agree Westminster should have taken a more direct role and much earlier.

I note that the priest (bishop) at Casey's funeral mass made quite a big play about that gentleman's perceived failings. I will be interested to see if there is any reference by the priest (bishop, pope?) at Martin's funeral to his responsibility, indirect possibly, for such things as the Enniskillen massacre and the ordering of 10 young men to starve themselves to death.

 

[Adecco]

However I admire the fact that McGuiness accepted that what they were doing was wrong....

But did he though? I didn't read that anywhere.

As I understand it the reason SF/IRA changed tact was a strategic one .... rather than some moral reasons.
i.e. They felt the ballot would be a more effective way to reach their goals rather than the bullet.

There's no doubt had they continued to believe the bullet was more effective then they would have continued with that strategy instead. (There is certainly no evidence to believe otherwise)

Make no mistake - this change in direction was purely to suit their own needs rather for the good of society in general.

I also believe that pushing for peace when he had influence was the least he could do. SUrely anyone in their right mind would do the same ! He's getting far too much credit for doing something that most sane people would do in the same position.
I for one think commentators are WAY too lenient on him. He was responsible for some mind boggling atrocities. The man has a lot of blood on his hands.

 

[Adecco]

At least he had the honesty to admit his IRA involvement unlike Pinnochio

He didn't have any choice - he was jailed for it ! He may well have denied it had there been no proof against him. We never will know.

What we do know though is that he only admitted being in the IRA for a small period of time and also claimed he was never a member of the army council - whereas it is widely documented that this is untrue.
He also claims he had no advance knowledge of the Eniskillen bombing - even though again widely reported that he most likely sanctioned it.

So a definite touch of pinnochio about him

 

[Firefly]

As I understand it the reason SF/IRA changed tact was a strategic one .... rather than some moral reasons.

I think the IRA knew the game was up - MI5 had infiltrated the upper echelons at that stage and the identity of Stakeknife came out a few years later..

 

[Vanessa]

I think the IRA knew the game was up - MI5 had infiltrated the upper echelons at that stage and the identity of Stakeknife came out a few years later..

The first ceasefire which ended with the Canary Wharf bombing occurred because of British demands on total decommissioning of IRA arms before negotiations. The IRA would not agree and broke the ceasefre. This would indicate that they werent accepting that the game was up and that they had the capability to hit London. Their operations had become tighter and werent as compromised as much as they were in the 80s by the supergrasses and Diplock Court.
Following the second ceasefire they had to decommission when Michael McDowell threatened to walk. But at that point the IRA/Sinn Fein leadership could see how power sharing was forming and knw that if they went back to war it would be a long struggle with neither side winning

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The first ceasefire which ended with the Canary Wharf bombing occurred because of British demands on total decommissioning of IRA arms before negotiations. The IRA would not agree and broke the ceasefre. This would indicate that they werent accepting that the game was up and that they had the capability to hit London. Their operations had become tighter and werent as compromised as much as they were in the 80s by the supergrasses and Diplock Court.
Following the second ceasefire they had to decommission when Michael McDowell threatened to walk. But at that point the IRA/Sinn Fein leadership could see how power sharing was forming and knw that if they went back to war it would be a long struggle with neither side winning

Exactly and this underlines Adecco's point. The "peace process" was not a result of any sudden movement in the needle on the IRA's or Martin's moral compass. This was no Pauline conversion. It was a strategic recognition that the "armed struggle" was going nowhere and that with the growing electoral support for Sinn Fein/IRA an arrangement ala Sunningdale would suit very nicely indeed. Pity these slow learners, including Martin, were responsible for so many deaths (directly or indirectly through the loyalist retaliations) before the penny dropped.

 

[cremeegg]

The first ceasefire which ended with the Canary Wharf bombing

The first IRA ceasefire (it was referred to as the Truce) began on 26 June 1972 as a prelude to the Cheyne Road talks. Adams and McGuinness were two of the Republican representatives. It broke down on 9 July 1972.

 

[Purple]

Possibly if unionists had the courage to ignore nationalist hostility the likes of Martin would never have had a chance to wage such a long war, who knows?

Possibly if they didn't run a Unionist State for a Unionist People for 50 years and defecate all over the Catholics they wouldn't have had to deal with any Nationalist hostility at all.

The first IRA ceasefire (it was referred to as the Truce) began on 26 June 1972 as a prelude to the Cheyne Road talks. Adams and McGuinness were two of the Republican representatives. It broke down on 9 July 1972.

Yep, he and Adams were trying to move the "Struggle" towards politics since then. That doesn't mean that they did't have blood on their hands but lets no pretend they are on their own in that in the Northern Ireland state-let. The Unionists had their own terrorist groups as well as their own police force, their own reservists and the weight of the British security forces behind them. While the Army generally acted as an honest broker the RUC/UVF/SAS/MI5 cesspool was very much on the wrong side of the law.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Yep, he and Adams were trying to move the "Struggle" towards politics since then.

Then? 1972? I referred above to a TV interview given by Martin in 1985. 1985 was when Garret persuaded Mrs T to sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement, a total anathema to Sinn Féin/IRA and of course their main benefactor Charles Haughey. I repeat that Martin articulated very clearly the strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box - "the cutting edge of the IRA" was essential to achieve an all Ireland socialist republic. Thankfully he is right in that assessment, only armed insurrection will achieve that goal.

But let's go back to 1972 when you allege, my dear Purple, that Grisly and Martin were trying to move the struggle towards politics. Oh so wrong. They absolutely dreaded politics at that stage as they had nil electoral support (despite that 50 years of oppression). The electoral tide turned after those 10 young men died on a hunger strike, for the prolongation of which Grisly and Martin must bear a heavy responsibility. Anyway that dates the strategic shift from the Armalite more in the direction of the ballot box, but of course still riding both horses as explained by Martin in aforementioned interview.

Purple you seem to subscribe to a narrative re the treatment of northern catholics which is known in the North as "mopery": Most Oppressed People Ever For what its worth the lot of northern catholics throughout those 50 years was greatly superior to that of the majority of citizens in the Free State and that's before we consider the treatment of unmarried mothers and their babies etc. in that utopia.

 

[Vanessa]

The first IRA ceasefire (it was referred to as the Truce) began on 26 June 1972 as a prelude to the Cheyne Road talks. Adams and McGuinness were two of the Republican representatives. It broke down on 9 July 1972.

If you want complete accuracy the first IRA ceasefire known as the Truce commenced 11th July 1921. The ceasefire in 1972 involved the organisation known as the Provisional IRA

 

[Purple]

Then? 1972? I referred above to a TV interview given by Martin in 1985. 1985 was when Garret persuaded Mrs T to sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement, a total anathema to Sinn Féin/IRA and of course their main benefactor Charles Haughey. I repeat that Martin articulated very clearly the strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box - "the cutting edge of the IRA" was essential to achieve an all Ireland socialist republic. Thankfully he is right in that assessment, only armed insurrection will achieve that goal.

It is reasonable to suggets that he was saying that to keep the IRA on side. I don't know where you get the idea that CJH was the IRA's main benefactor.

But let's go back to 1972 when you allege, my dear Purple, that Grisly and Martin were trying to move the struggle towards politics. Oh so wrong. They absolutely dreaded politics at that stage as they had nil electoral support (despite that 50 years of oppression). The electoral tide turned after those 10 young men died on a hunger strike, for the prolongation of which Grisly and Martin must bear a heavy responsibility. Anyway that dates the strategic shift from the Armalite more in the direction of the ballot box, but of course still riding both horses as explained by Martin in aforementioned interview.

He had to ride both horses in order to get them both to go in the same direction.

you seem to subscribe to a narrative re the treatment of northern catholics which is known in the North as "mopery": Most Oppressed People Ever

Nope, but it was basically an apartheid state.

For what its worth the lot of northern catholics throughout those 50 years was greatly superior to that of the majority of citizens in the Free State and that's before we consider the treatment of unmarried mothers and their babies etc. in that utopia.

A different point which would require hours and beer to discuss properly.

 

[Vanessa]

Then? 1972? I referred above to a TV interview given by Martin in 1985. 1985 was when Garret persuaded Mrs T to sign up to the Anglo Irish Agreement, a total anathema to Sinn Féin/IRA and of course their main benefactor Charles Haughey. I repeat that Martin articulated very clearly the strategy of the Armalite and the ballot box - "the cutting edge of the IRA" was essential to achieve an all Ireland socialist republic. Thankfully he is right in that assessment, only armed insurrection will achieve that goal.

But let's go back to 1972 when you allege, my dear Purple, that Grisly and Martin were trying to move the struggle towards politics. Oh so wrong. They absolutely dreaded politics at that stage as they had nil electoral support (despite that 50 years of oppression). The electoral tide turned after those 10 young men died on a hunger strike, for the prolongation of which Grisly and Martin must bear a heavy responsibility. Anyway that dates the strategic shift from the Armalite more in the direction of the ballot box, but of course still riding both horses as explained by Martin in aforementioned interview.

Purple you seem to subscribe to a narrative re the treatment of northern catholics which is known in the North as "mopery": Most Oppressed People Ever For what its worth the lot of northern catholics throughout those 50 years was greatly superior to that of the majority of citizens in the Free State and that's before we consider the treatment of unmarried mothers and their babies etc. in that utopia.

The Socialist Republic seems to have gone off the list except where the party formerly known as AAAPBP are the opposition. Of course socialism and equal distrbution of wealth wouldnt be the most popular i n South Armagh or along the Clogher Valley