Martin McGuinness Dies

[hilts]

I've heard that too.

I think @che_don_john Is being more than a tad unfair on Paisley. I think he made as much of a 'journey' as McGuinness.

Or McGuiness and paisley were equally a pair of nasty cunts who followed the winds of change and did very well for themselves on the back of untold misery. Who knew redemption meant feathering your own nest.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Or McGuiness and paisley were equally a pair of nasty cunts who followed the winds of change and did very well for themselves on the back of untold misery. Who knew redemption meant feathering your own nest.

Redemption is certainly big box office. The Christian church has been turning a few quid out of it for centuries.

 

[hilts]

Redemption is certainly big box office. The Christian church has been turning a few quid out of it for centuries.

I'm of the simple opinion that if people are going to fawn over a murdering scumbag he needs to have done some serious self sacrifice to deserve it. Seeing Tony fucking Blair of all people power wanking over the fuckers legacy doesn't sit well with me.

 

[mad4city]

Best statement I heard on this was posted by a mate of mine in NI - the IRA would have happened without McGuinness, the peace process would not.

That's probably a fair comment insomuch as he had the kudos within the paramilitary community to breach the gap and not be shunned (or worse!).

You missed the part where the Twin Towers came tumbling down and the collection tins came to a stop.

The Good Friday agreement may have been signed a couple years beforehand, but the money tap was still turned on until 9/11.

Norma Percy's documentary "Endgame in Ireland" is regarded by most observers as the definitive document on the lead up to The Good Friday agreement.
It suggests that the first moves were made in the mid-eighties, long before the eventual joint declaration in 1993 (and even longer before 9/11, of course).
She makes no reference to your theory. I'd be surprised if any responsible historian or commentator does.
I don't know if you're playing at guilt by association, wishful thinking or trying to rewrite history but one hopes that you apply more stringent research (or perhaps just less prejudice?) to your day job.

 

[happychappy]

I remember reading Peter Taylor's summing up at the end of one his books, that the IRA knew they were beaten and ready for peace in the mid 70's and an agreement was in place but Ian Paisley refused to sign it in 1976. It took another generation for Paisley to agree to sign the good Friday agreement which is in fact the same agreement that was in place in 1976, but with a few word changes

 

[kinkyblue]

That's probably a fair comment insomuch as he had the kudos within the paramilitary community to breach the gap and not be shunned (or worse!).



Norma Percy's documentary "Endgame in Ireland" is regarded by most observers as the definitive document on the lead up to The Good Friday agreement.
It suggests that the first moves were made in the mid-eighties, long before the eventual joint declaration in 1993 (and even longer before 9/11, of course).
She makes no reference to your theory. I'd be surprised if any responsible historian or commentator does.
I don't know if you're playing at guilt by association, wishful thinking or trying to rewrite history but one hopes that you apply more stringent research (or perhaps just less prejudice?) to your day job.

The theory is partly correct, it was also helped by the fact we had strangled the IRA in the province and they couldn't move without us knowing exactly what they were doing. They were beaten and they knew it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mad4city]

The theory is partly correct, it was also helped by the fact we had strangled the IRA in the province and they couldn't move without us knowing exactly what they were doing. They were beaten and they knew it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a growing tendency to overstate the position of Britain vis-a-vis the Republicans at that time.
It's nonsense for a number of reasons:

1) Irish Republicanism has never been dependent upon British weakness. (Although, some of its defining moments occurred during times of British distraction (eg 1916). The concept of Romantic Idealism is intrinsically entwined with Irish Republicanism and it alone offers a summary dismissal if the notion that the IRA were forced into a corner by the might and expertise of the British military and political system. (This, I say, not to entirely dismiss Britain's role in facilitating the peace process for even a second but to point out that nothing Britain has ever done; no position of strength it has ever had, has ever brought Irish Republicanism to heel).

The following points also back up my argument that the suggestion that Britain had manoeuvred the IRA into a surrender is fatuous at best (and both mendacious and triumphalist at worst).

2)The Endgame in Ireland began at a time when the IRA was at its strongest point, in terms of numbers, education and resources, ever. (The conventional wisdom is that the leadership realised that they could take the armed struggle no further and had nothing to lose by responding to the British governments earlier approaches).

3) It was the UK government which first broached the idea of peace talks. (Albeit courier five years earlier and they were rejected). What prompted the IRA turnaround? See point 2 but also consider the socio-economic upturn in the Republic of Ireland. They wanted some of the Celtic Tiger economy. In other words, greed. (Not that they were the only ones so motivated).

4) Thatcher's incompetent mishandling of the Hunger Strikes, less than a decade earlier and Internment long before that, meant that the IRA had no fear of jails. They saw theas excellent recruitment and training grounds. There's no way that prison (or death and the creation of martyrs) was a motivational factor.

5) The Omagh bomb - carried out by a tiny fraction of dissidents, after McGuiness & Co had negotiated a ceasefire, proves beyond doubt that Britain was not in control of the situation by any stretch.

Apologies (sincerely so) if any of the above sounds like my own Irish triumphalism. That is genuinely not my intention. I'm just discounting a growing myth of British triumphalism.
Frankly, the day is too far away before any of us can start taking credit for the debacle of Northern Ireland and/or pretending that either side "won".

 

[Nails]

That's probably a fair comment insomuch as he had the kudos within the paramilitary community to breach the gap and not be shunned (or worse!).



Norma Percy's documentary "Endgame in Ireland" is regarded by most observers as the definitive document on the lead up to The Good Friday agreement.
It suggests that the first moves were made in the mid-eighties, long before the eventual joint declaration in 1993 (and even longer before 9/11, of course).
She makes no reference to your theory. I'd be surprised if any responsible historian or commentator does.
I don't know if you're playing at guilt by association, wishful thinking or trying to rewrite history but one hopes that you apply more stringent research (or perhaps just less prejudice?) to your day job.

Tolmie really does spout total shit.

 

[Damocles]

 

[jimharri]

Good to see Arlene Foster getting a decent reception from the congregation at the funeral mass;
http://linkis.com/www.bbc.co.uk/news/ybqru