Martin McGuiness for President?

So Dana's a Yank and McGuinness is a Brit. Surely we should put our foot down and only buy Irish? Actually I've now decided that Gallagher is my man in the Dragon's Den, formally known as the Aras. He looks like a bloke that could slap the heads off those "Talk Talk" numbskulls and get out IDA money back.
 
oldnick said:
Gosh ,Onq, ... so, ... we are in no doubt that the Britain killed hundreds if not thousands of innocent nationalists by passing on the names of these innocent Catholics to Loyalist murder squads....


Do you believe that ? Really?
Click to expand...
You never hear of the Stevens Inquiries? Brian Nelson? He was just one British agent, there were many hundreds more.
 
Bill Struth said:
You never hear of the Stevens Inquiries? Brian Nelson? He was just one British agent, there were many hundreds more.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are wondering how many of these British agents are now in senior positions within Sinn Fein, and if any of them are standing for President. ;)
 
Well according to recent opinion poll, SF is now the second most popular party in the country. This was no doubt the objective of the presidential campaign - to promote the party rather than get their guy in the park.

[broken link removed]
 
T McGibney said:
A lot of people are wondering how many of these British agents are now in senior positions within Sinn Fein, and if any of them are standing for President. ;)
Click to expand...
J118 anyone? ;)

Allegedly there's a tape somewhere of a conversation between a certain agent and his handler. Now that would be interesting listening.
 
Bill Struth said:
You never hear of the Stevens Inquiries? Brian Nelson? He was just one British agent, there were many hundreds more.
Click to expand...

no doubt there was collusion, but looking at it from start to finish from 1969 riots, RUC in Derry, burning out of catholics, Operation Motorman/Rape of the Falls, Internment, Bloody Sunday its fair to say that there were some compelling reasons as to why the IRA emerged and had support - it hardly having existed around 1969.

However from around the mid 70's it was fairly clear that there was going to be no military victories on either side, and the IRA 'long war' was pointless and blood thirsty. So you got Kingsmill massacre (pick out the 1 catholic & shoot the 12 protestants), Le Mons (firebombing ordinary punters), Bloody Friday (spate of bombings across Belfast in civilian areas), Pub bombings in UK (maybe a suggestion these werent "official jobs"), Mountbatten, Hyde Park (famous for the horses....), Enniskillen and I'm sure another 10 or 12 that had no 'military' justification (and thats presuming you accept all military targets were justifiable in a "war"). Then there was The Dissappeared, torture, community control and punishment beatings, one could go on. So basically there was total disregard for civilian life and collusion came in the 80's - not that it was justifiable but its clear no-one was adopting Queensbury Rules, so to speak.....

Why any of this is relevant is that McGuinness & other senior leaders have a lot to answer for, ok he was eventually cajoled into the peace process, but a couple of decades (at least) of pointless killing and then lying about your role in it are hardly the credentials you'd be looking for in your ideal candidate.
 
Another beauty from todays Irish Times :D

Sir, – Since we seem intent on dredging through the past misdemeanours of the presidential candidates in order to diminish their candidacy, I want to know, from the other six, if any of them ever attended a Dana concert. – Yours, etc,
JOHN MCDWYER,
Summerhill,
Carrick on Shannon,
Co Leitrim.
 
Indoctrination by Dana - subliminal pressures on who to vote in as President.

Could be a doctoral thesis on the benefits of media manipulation there :D
 
Betsy Og said:
Why any of this is relevant is that McGuinness & other senior leaders have a lot to answer for, ok he was eventually cajoled into the peace process, but a couple of decades (at least) of pointless killing and then lying about your role in it are hardly the credentials you'd be looking for in your ideal candidate.
Click to expand...

No but then he'll be in good company if he meets Barack Obama or Banríon Eilís a Dó.
Add the head of any government that sent troops to Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya.

They all know what the sticky red stuff is on their hands.
The blood of innocents cannot be washed away.
 
Betsy Og said:
collusion came in the 80's
Click to expand...
Oh come on. The Glennane gang operated from 1972 onwards. Their first killing was with a British army issued grenade. Miami Showband attacks and Dublin/Monaghan bombings amongst their other 'successes'.
 
onq said:
Banríon Eilís a Dó.
They all know what the sticky red stuff is on their hands.
Click to expand...

Could we give it a rest about Banríon Eilís a Dó, anyone with even half a brain knows that she has had no hand act or part in the British military during her lifetime (wielding a spanner in her role as a WWII mechanic excepted), maybe she's figurehead of the UK & Commonwealth and the UK Armed Forces but she makes no decisions, has no responsibility. It would be like blaming the Irish president for something our army might do, to all intents and purposes it has nothing to do with them, and attributing blame or responsibility to them is just plain daft.
 
Bill Struth said:
Oh come on. The Glennane gang operated from 1972 onwards. Their first killing was with a British army issued grenade. Miami Showband attacks and Dublin/Monaghan bombings amongst their other 'successes'.
Click to expand...

The stuff you were talking about, if I'm not mistaken, was in the 1980's, but the general point is that collusion wasnt a catalyst to the whole problem - there were enough clearer reasons.
 
Betsy Og said:
no doubt there was collusion, but looking at it from start to finish from 1969 riots, RUC in Derry, burning out of catholics, Operation Motorman/Rape of the Falls, Internment, Bloody Sunday its fair to say that there were some compelling reasons as to why the IRA emerged and had support - it hardly having existed around 1969.

However from around the mid 70's it was fairly clear that there was going to be no military victories on either side, and the IRA 'long war' was pointless and blood thirsty. So you got Kingsmill massacre (pick out the 1 catholic & shoot the 12 protestants), Le Mons (firebombing ordinary punters), Bloody Friday (spate of bombings across Belfast in civilian areas), Pub bombings in UK (maybe a suggestion these werent "official jobs"), Mountbatten, Hyde Park (famous for the horses....), Enniskillen and I'm sure another 10 or 12 that had no 'military' justification (and thats presuming you accept all military targets were justifiable in a "war"). Then there was The Dissappeared, torture, community control and punishment beatings, one could go on. So basically there was total disregard for civilian life and collusion came in the 80's - not that it was justifiable but its clear no-one was adopting Queensbury Rules, so to speak.....

Why any of this is relevant is that McGuinness & other senior leaders have a lot to answer for, ok he was eventually cajoled into the peace process, but a couple of decades (at least) of pointless killing and then lying about your role in it are hardly the credentials you'd be looking for in your ideal candidate.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective here from Kevin Myers, on the 'informer culture' that fed, and fed off, the Troubles.
 
Betsy Og said:
The stuff you were talking about, if I'm not mistaken, was in the 1980's, but the general point is that collusion wasnt a catalyst to the whole problem - there were enough clearer reasons.
Click to expand...
Collusion did not 'come in the 80's', it was there long before. That is my point. What you think was a catalyst and what wasn't is your opinion. The notion that loyalists operated as a reaction to republican violence is wrong in my opinion. The birth of 'the troubles' and the increase in loyalist killings after the ceasefire show that.
 
Bill Struth said:
Collusion did not 'come in the 80's', it was there long before. That is my point. Fair Enough. What you think was a catalyst and what wasn't is your opinion. Indeed. The notion that loyalists operated as a reaction to republican violence is wrong in my opinion. I'd be inclined to agree, but dont know who's arguing. The birth of 'the troubles' and the increase in loyalist killings after the ceasefire show that.
Click to expand...

Anyway, back to the topic, would you concur with the view that Marty & the lads knocked 2 decades more out of it than were "necessary", commiting some awful deeds along the way, and as a result of that Marty is unsuitable for the role?
 
Betsy Og said:
Anyway, back to the topic, would you concur with the view that Marty & the lads knocked 2 decades more out of it than were "necessary", commiting some awful deeds along the way,?
Click to expand...

I'm a firm believer that no political cause can justify the taking of human life.
Betsy Og said:
and as a result of that Marty is unsuitable for the role?
Click to expand...
Dunno about that. How do we measure unsuitability? As has been said before, Bush and Blair have the blood of many times more innocents on their hands.
 
Betsy Og

There is more social injustice and inequality in the RoI than there ever was in NI. The terrorist uprising needed the support of a hostile foreign state. Charles Haughey, Kevin Boland, Neil Blaney etc. provided that support and then of course latterly so did Daffi duck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top