Martin McGuinness RIP

ICBM

lonestar said:

The recent violence (late 60s onwards) was due to the oppression of Catholics in the North. They were living in poverty while the Protestants were given new houses, first pick of the jobs etc not forgetting that the RUC were made up of sectarian thugs. The RUC were responsible for burning Catholics out of their homes, murders and large scale violence. The problem for them is the republicans bit back, hard. 

Again, I'm not defending anything but I am keen to share a POV from my time here. And tbh the loyalist forces have brought much of the death on themselves because of THEIR treatment and murder of the catholic population. I'd also add that the Paras were an extremely trigger happy group of men within the army. They were responsible for both Bloody Sunday AND Ballymurphy. Thankfully, evidence is now being produced to show that everyone who was killed was a peaceful demonstrator.

As an ex-army officer, my father has always said that the officers, NCOs and any soldiers who fired shots on Bloody Sunday should have been court-martialled - it was a total breakdown of discipline and the standing orders regarding civil disturbances, whether or not any shots were ever fired at the army. Shooting indiscriminately at unarmed demonstrators can't ever be justified.

When he was stationed there, officers were barracked with their families so my mother was there (this was before I was born, must have been the early 60s) and one day she went to buy some groceries from a shop she'd never been to before. When she got back she was told by one of the other army wives never to go there again because it was a Catholic shop.

fields5069

I keep trying to come up with an analogy for a murderer being allowed to turn to politics.

He was a changed man, apparently. Ah, so that's OK then lol. Like Dirty Den but a bit dirtier.

A rapist turning to social work? Hmm. Needs work I think.

GoldenEraGuitars

fields5069 said:

I keep trying to come up with an analogy for a murderer being allowed to turn to politics.

He was a changed man, apparently. Ah, so that's OK then lol. Like Dirty Den but a bit dirtier.

A rapist turning to social work? Hmm. Needs work I think.

Do we REALLY have to remind you of some basic history here? Several points and paragraphs have been written in this thread by people who have a basic grasp of what happened. I'm not repeating myself for you. Scroll up and see what the police, UVF and army did to Catholics.

GoldenEraGuitars

ICBM said:

lonestar said:

The recent violence (late 60s onwards) was due to the oppression of Catholics in the North. They were living in poverty while the Protestants were given new houses, first pick of the jobs etc not forgetting that the RUC were made up of sectarian thugs. The RUC were responsible for burning Catholics out of their homes, murders and large scale violence. The problem for them is the republicans bit back, hard. 

Again, I'm not defending anything but I am keen to share a POV from my time here. And tbh the loyalist forces have brought much of the death on themselves because of THEIR treatment and murder of the catholic population. I'd also add that the Paras were an extremely trigger happy group of men within the army. They were responsible for both Bloody Sunday AND Ballymurphy. Thankfully, evidence is now being produced to show that everyone who was killed was a peaceful demonstrator.

As an ex-army officer, my father has always said that the officers, NCOs and any soldiers who fired shots on Bloody Sunday should have been court-martialled - it was a total breakdown of discipline and the standing orders regarding civil disturbances, whether or not any shots were ever fired at the army. Shooting indiscriminately at unarmed demonstrators can't ever be justified.

When he was stationed there, officers were barracked with their families so my mother was there (this was before I was born, must have been the early 60s) and one day she went to buy some groceries from a shop she'd never been to before. When she got back she was told by one of the other army wives never to go there again because it was a Catholic shop.

Wow. You're father must have a lot of stories, be great to be able to hear more of them. 

That is quite common practice for some people still to this day. Of course, it only exists within those hardcore factions of society but never the less it's still there. The majority of people aren't bothered about the name above a door now thankfully. 

GoldenEraGuitars

robgilmo said:

You know one thing I did notice when I first moved to England was how uneducated people here were regarding the troubles, this I noticed was down to the news that they had access to, you never once heard about a Catholic being murdered or a Catholic family being burned out of their houses, RUC members active in the UVF, but that's the media for you, they have to sell a war to the population to gain public backing. Imagine if the media pushed for a peaceful solution to war and reported an unbiased account of things? 

All I ever heard was things like ''we need to get over there and shoot them all'' , or ''Just drop a big fking bomb on them'' etc etc, I never once heard ''perhaps we need to think about a peaceful solution''. 

I heard similar stuff when I went to Uni in Lincoln. People heard my Scottish/Ulster twang and started at me with all sorts of nonsense. 

So, I'm well weathered to ignorant people and their comments. It gets boring having to repeat yourself. 

Id also add as a Scot living here I'm also neither catholic or Protestant.

Go figure...

ICBM

lonestar said:

You're father must have a lot of stories, be great to be able to hear more of them.

A few, although he was only there for a couple of years. At that time it was a safe posting - his previous one was Singapore at the tail end of the Malayan Emergency, which was still an active troublespot - but he says it was obvious that the Catholics were being treated very badly and he wasn't surprised when it later turned to violence.

GoldenEraGuitars

ICBM said:

lonestar said:

You're father must have a lot of stories, be great to be able to hear more of them.

A few, although he was only there for a couple of years. At that time it was a safe posting - his previous one was Singapore at the tail end of the Malayan Emergency, which was still an active troublespot - but he says it was obvious that the Catholics were being treated very badly and he wasn't surprised when it later turned to violence.

I wonder if he was there when the IRA walked straight into a barracks in Armagh (dressed as British soldiers) and left with ALL the arms and not a single shot fired? 

Terrible, terrible situation for a young man to walk into. I don't think any of the soldiers based here during the troubles wanted to be anywhere near the country.

ICBM

lonestar said:

I wonder if he was there when the IRA walked straight into a barracks in Armagh (dressed as British soldiers) and left with ALL the arms and not a single shot fired?

He was based in Belfast. From when my parents were married (November '61) he must have been there in about '62-'63 I think - so probably before that anyway. 

Drew_TNBD

lonestar said:

Scroll up and see what the police, UVF and army did to Catholics.

How does one shitty set of actions justify another shitty set of actions? I'd really fucking love to know that.

GoldenEraGuitars

ICBM said:

lonestar said:

I wonder if he was there when the IRA walked straight into a barracks in Armagh (dressed as British soldiers) and left with ALL the arms and not a single shot fired?

He was based in Belfast. From when my parents were married (November '61) he must have been there in about '62-'63 I think - so probably before that anyway. 

Must have been a very eye opening way of life for him. I assume he returned safely?

GoldenEraGuitars

Drew_TNBD said:

lonestar said:

Scroll up and see what the police, UVF and army did to Catholics.

How does one shitty set of actions justify another shitty set of actions? I'd really fucking love to know that.

I suppose it doesn't, really. 

But to use WW2 as the example... when Germany rampaged across Europe they were stopped, by force. 

When the Brits kept trying to take Ireland they were met by Irishmen who stood up for themselves. 

My question to you is - can a nation not defend itself against an invading force? 

Dominic

Drew_TNBD said:

If you REALLY want to go back as far as the Normans, then you can't call it British oppression. The Normans weren't British. They were French. ANNNDDDDDDD they were requested to invade Ireland by an ousted Irish king!!

History is fun!

Actually ,if you want to go back the Normans were not French (there were no FRENCH as such ) Burgundians , Alsatians were all at war with one another - the Normans were of Viking descent as was Harold Godwinson and Tostig the Viking pretender to the Crown of England 
 An interesting historical fact is that once Landed at Hastings Harold sent messenger envoys to William asking if he wouldn't mind staying put and waiting for him to come and join battle as he was busy in the North of England quelling a Viking rebellion  under Tostig .William was a gent and duly obliged whilst his troops ran around for 4 months pillaging Sussex.
 The biggest threat to William was that on the very same day he landed at Hastings Harald Hadrada ,a Dane Viking ,landed in Kent with a force ready to March on England and Harold Godwinson .Both Harold and William pointed out that it was a tad inconvenient and would he mind awfully postponing ;they  asked him to leave and come back for another attempt some time in the not too distant future -and he obliged !
  THE POINT OF THE STORY  AND RELEVANCE TO THE MCGUINNESS ISSUE IS THAT HISTORY AND POLITICS ARE NOT CLEAR CUT
NOR HOW WE ARE TAUGHT AT SCHOOL;
MANDELA, ARAFAT,BEGIN,TOPRAK,TITO,ASSAD, etc all TERRORISTS /FREEDOM-FIGHTERS depending on your perspective but all Poachers turned Gamekeepers and legitimised.
 Most of the British Empire was "captured"initially by Pirates/Privateers inc Raleigh and Drake who were able to buy favour with respective royalty by cherry picking the spoils and giving the rump to the Empire.Like Conquistadores they were also "terrorists "

ICBM

lonestar said:

Must have been a very eye opening way of life for him. I assume he returned safely?

Yes - there was no trouble then. But you're right about eye-opening - he was never entirely unsympathetic to the Republicans even at the height of the IRA terror campaign, even though he thought they shouldn't have targeted civilians.

mart

fields5069 said:

I keep trying to come up with an analogy for a murderer being allowed to turn to politics.

He was a changed man, apparently. Ah, so that's OK then lol. Like Dirty Den but a bit dirtier.

A rapist turning to social work? Hmm. Needs work I think.

It's not easy, but for me I think the answer is in Ian Paisley. He wasn't exactly a soft-hearted bleeding-heart liberal, was he. If *he* came to the conclusion that it was better to work with McGuinness than continue to condemn him, then I'm inclined to trust him.

RocknRollDave

lonestar said:

Drew_TNBD said:

lonestar said:

Scroll up and see what the police, UVF and army did to Catholics.

How does one shitty set of actions justify another shitty set of actions? I'd really fucking love to know that.

I suppose it doesn't, really. 

But to use WW2 as the example... when Germany rampaged across Europe they were stopped, by force. 

When the Brits kept trying to take Ireland they were met by Irishmen who stood up for themselves. 

My question to you is - can a nation not defend itself against an invading force? 

I'm not disagreeing that British history is sullied with the blood of many innocent people, but I am at a loss to see attacking innocent civilians hundreds of miles away in England is "defence" "against an invading force".

AliGorie

who's side R U on ?

Today's Daily Mail - Irish edition v UK edition pic.twitter.com/c72MiwOdP4

GoldenEraGuitars

RocknRollDave said:

lonestar said:

Drew_TNBD said:

lonestar said:

Scroll up and see what the police, UVF and army did to Catholics.

How does one shitty set of actions justify another shitty set of actions? I'd really fucking love to know that.

I suppose it doesn't, really. 

But to use WW2 as the example... when Germany rampaged across Europe they were stopped, by force. 

When the Brits kept trying to take Ireland they were met by Irishmen who stood up for themselves. 

My question to you is - can a nation not defend itself against an invading force? 

I'm not disagreeing that British history is sullied with the blood of many innocent people, but I am at a loss to see attacking innocent civilians hundreds of miles away in England is "defence" "against an invading force".

I suppose you can imagine how the Irish felt when the first invading British army arrived.

An army from a country a couple of hundred of miles away starts murdering Irish men, women and children for resisting, for speaking their own language, for playing their own sports, for having their own way of life. 

Dominic

Or engineering a famine.........

GoldenEraGuitars

AliGorie said:

who's side R U on ?

Today's Daily Mail - Irish edition v UK edition pic.twitter.com/c72MiwOdP4

http://https//pbs.twimg.com/media/C7gsyt4XQAA-efu.jpg:large

It's not as black and white as that, I'm afraid. 

ICBM

AliGorie said:

who's side R U on ?

Today's Daily Mail - Irish edition v UK edition

So it's not only a disgraceful hate-stirring right-wing rag, it's a hypocritical one too. Who would have imagined that?