Martin Mc Guinness Passes Away at 66

[ardchieftain]

I too grew up in the early 70's and TBh was directly effected by the troubles in my family, I remember the British Soldiers bursting our door down and raiding the house and I remember a solider kicking the castle i was playing with on the floor and it going into a thousand bits with me still bits in my hand. I remember getting to a teenager and starting to throw petrol/paint bombs and any missile i could get my hands on, I remember joining a Republican flute band and wanted to free Ireland and wanted to be like the older guys around the estate. I think what hit home with my mother was the day someone set her down a copy of the "Republican News" with me on the front page parading in a military uniform in Derry was straw that broke the camel's back, from that moment on i was made to leave the band and every time a riot kicked off in the estate i was dragged in by the neck to the house. I grew up (kinda) and wised up (kinda) and when i look back now i realise how different things could have been.

Regarding Martin I have great respect for him and am thankful them men were around in the 70's growing up as there'd be very few of us left had they not taken up the armed struggle, i know some things happened that shouldn't have but i believe 95% of their targets were against the armed forces and loyalists. I think what he's done recently over the last 15 years is even more remarkable when u consider where he came from and what he was trying to achieve and for that i thank him, he showed great patience and is responsible for the peace we have today...

RIP Martin

We had similar experiences, though mine was in Armagh. When my parents found out i had joined the republican flute band my Da gave me a hiding. Things like getting the house raided and the army searching my schoolbag and throwing the contents all over the town centre led to me becoming very angry. Confused too by my parents reaction. Many of my friends from school and local area ended up serving time or being killed and i often look back and think, that could have been me. Luckily we moved to the countryside when i was 14, to a unionist area, which saved me from going down a road of no return. By the time i got to my late teens i didn't even consider myself republican anymore. I've never voted sinn fein but Martin McGuinness always came across as someone genuine. The troubles had reached a dead end and people like McGuinness had the vision and courage to travel a new road. rest easy marty

[vallankumous]

Irony and amputated history
by Jude Collins on March 22, 2017

Perhaps most ironic of all,  there was little or no stress placed on what should have been an obvious question: what motivated Martin McGuinness and thousands like him to resort to violence? Was he programmed that way? Were all those IRA men and women motivated by blood-lust and hatred,  a blood-lust and hatred that suddenly boiled over for no reason in the early 1970s and continued for the next two decades, until they they suddenly decided they didn't want to hate and spill blood any more?

It can't be stressed often enough: people like McGuinness joined the IRA knowing that their chances of being killed or imprisoned were very high. And yet they did it. Such a decision must have been motivated by something. Fifty years of unionist misrule? Attacks by the RUC and B Specials on civil rights marchers?  The beating to death by the RUC of Catholic man Sammy Devenney, in his own home, in front of his children, because he had dared to participate in a civil rights march?

When I hear of people who work in Counter Terrorism I always think of this point. Sadly there TVs are full of comments  from people involved in Counter Terrorism tonight.

I think if you are working in Counter Terrorism in London or New York or Paris your really working in Terrorism Limitation. It can not be countered in such places. It can only be countered by the relationships built between communities in all corners of the world. For Ireland it was on the roads around south Armagh, the Bog Side, East Tyrone, West Belfast (on the nationalist side) etc. Anyone sitting in London or Dublin putting in security measures around a border or city buildings were too late. They were involved in limitation measures only.

[trileacman]

I understand what drive men of the 60's and 70's to join the IRA but I can't countenance some of their actions once they had joined it. Had they stuck to strictly military or strategic targets most of that would have been defensible but most of the time innocents were targeted. What did the deaths of Nicholas Knatchbull or Paul Maxwell have to do with republicanism or Irish independence? Posters regularly round on Fearon when he defends how the church abused and caused the deaths of hundreds of children but yet can find room to defend the IRA who were complicit in the deaths of many innocent women and children. Many here have recounted stories about the troubles but no amount of harassment at UDR checkpoints or guns being waved in your face is worth the lives of innocent children.

Leaving that aside, I had great time for Martin McGuinness. Too much has been made of his chuckle brother routine with Paisley and using Paisley as a counter-point. His nearest equivalent would have been David Ervine who was also also a paramilitary turned politician and also a man whom held my respect. To their credit both seen the futility of the bloodshed and had a humility in the post-troubles years that to me dictated a sense of remorse for the years of slaughter. That humility I find lacking in Adams, Robinson, Foster and to a certain extent Paisley who all appear/appeared to think that the peace process was their accomplishment as opposed to how they should feel; that the troubles was their fault.

[grounded]

That article from Jude Collins hits the nail on the head. In particular the fact that Trimble and Robinson had to wait until he was dead before they could utter a positive sentiment about the man.
            In a way it sort of sums up the entire Unionist mindset of not an inch and lie down croppie. During the peace process Martin genuinely tried to reach out to the other side of the community. He tried to put himself in their shoes took risks and pushed the boundaries of his own Republicanism in order to show good faith and keep the peace.
            Look at what happened to any Unionist leader who ' did a Lundy ' . Trimble got the boot for the timmerity of attempting to power share. Eventually Paisley got the same treatment for daring to have a friendly relationship with Martin. And last but not least magic Mike got the boot for merely saying he would give his second preference to a party from the other side of the house.
             The very fact that our previous first minister has yet to ' decide if ' she would attend the funeral of her deputy first minister is all part of the same aul backward looking mindset.          Not that i would highly rate his intellect but sadly i'd say Jamie ' flegger' Bryson's views on Nationalism would broadly be in line with the majority of Loyalists and Unionism when he said that ' Sinn Fein are great at trying to reach out to Unionists but they dont really mean it as secretly they still want a United Ireland and that these acts of friendship were just another strategy'. Sadly with a few notable exceptions that is the Unionist mentality. They see it as a sign of weakness, when in fact reaching out to a future Nationalist majority is exactly what they should do. But alas they can't see the elephant in the room.

[general_lee]

Willie Frazer reckons he's going to the local council buildings to tear the pages out of the book(s) of condolence for McGuinness.

[Syferus]

That article from Jude Collins hits the nail on the head. In particular the fact that Trimble and Robinson had to wait until he was dead before they could utter a positive sentiment about the man.
            In a way it sort of sums up the entire Unionist mindset of not an inch and lie down croppie. During the peace process Martin genuinely tried to reach out to the other side of the community. He tried to put himself in their shoes took risks and pushed the boundaries of his own Republicanism in order to show good faith and keep the peace.
            Look at what happened to any Unionist leader who ' did a Lundy ' . Trimble got the boot for the timmerity of attempting to power share. Eventually Paisley got the same treatment for daring to have a friendly relationship with Martin. And last but not least magic Mike got the boot for merely saying he would give his second preference to a party from the other side of the house.
             The very fact that our previous first minister has yet to ' decide if ' she would attend the funeral of her deputy first minister is all part of the same aul backward looking mindset.          Not that i would highly rate his intellect but sadly i'd say Jamie ' flegger' Bryson's views on Nationalism would broadly be in line with the majority of Loyalists and Unionism when he said that ' Sinn Fein are great at trying to reach out to Unionists but they dont really mean it as secretly they still want a United Ireland and that these acts of friendship were just another strategy'. Sadly with a few notable exceptions that is the Unionist mentality. They see it as a sign of weakness, when in fact reaching out to a future Nationalist majority is exactly what they should do. But alas they can't see the elephant in the room.

The buck plannng to blow unionists up a few years earlier would hardly find many friends in the unionist camp no matter how much he tried to reach out. It's not him that should have been in a position of power to begin with in the nationalist movement.

[gallsman]

Willie Frazer reckons he's going to the local council buildings to tear the pages out of the book(s) of condolence for McGuinness.

I was wondering when Wullie would pop up.

[grounded]

That article from Jude Collins hits the nail on the head. In particular the fact that Trimble and Robinson had to wait until he was dead before they could utter a positive sentiment about the man.
            In a way it sort of sums up the entire Unionist mindset of not an inch and lie down croppie. During the peace process Martin genuinely tried to reach out to the other side of the community. He tried to put himself in their shoes took risks and pushed the boundaries of his own Republicanism in order to show good faith and keep the peace.
            Look at what happened to any Unionist leader who ' did a Lundy ' . Trimble got the boot for the timmerity of attempting to power share. Eventually Paisley got the same treatment for daring to have a friendly relationship with Martin. And last but not least magic Mike got the boot for merely saying he would give his second preference to a party from the other side of the house.
             The very fact that our previous first minister has yet to ' decide if ' she would attend the funeral of her deputy first minister is all part of the same aul backward looking mindset.          Not that i would highly rate his intellect but sadly i'd say Jamie ' flegger' Bryson's views on Nationalism would broadly be in line with the majority of Loyalists and Unionism when he said that ' Sinn Fein are great at trying to reach out to Unionists but they dont really mean it as secretly they still want a United Ireland and that these acts of friendship were just another strategy'. Sadly with a few notable exceptions that is the Unionist mentality. They see it as a sign of weakness, when in fact reaching out to a future Nationalist majority is exactly what they should do. But alas they can't see the elephant in the room.

The buck plannng to blow unionists up a few years earlier would hardly find many friends in the unionist camp no matter how much he tried to reach out. It's not him that should have been in a position of power to begin with in the nationalist movement.

I think you've manage to miss the entire point of Jude's blog and my post.
     Anyway Who was the buck or buckos that planted the first bombs of the ' troubles ' ? 
   

[randomusername]

I understand what drive men of the 60's and 70's to join the IRA but I can't countenance some of their actions once they had joined it. Had they stuck to strictly military or strategic targets most of that would have been defensible but most of the time innocents were targeted. What did the deaths of Nicholas Knatchbull or Paul Maxwell have to do with republicanism or Irish independence? Posters regularly round on Fearon when he defends how the church abused and caused the deaths of hundreds of children but yet can find room to defend the IRA who were complicit in the deaths of many innocent women and children. Many here have recounted stories about the troubles but no amount of harassment at UDR checkpoints or guns being waved in your face is worth the lives of innocent children.

Leaving that aside, I had great time for Martin McGuinness. Too much has been made of his chuckle brother routine with Paisley and using Paisley as a counter-point. His nearest equivalent would have been David Ervine who was also also a paramilitary turned politician and also a man whom held my respect. To their credit both seen the futility of the bloodshed and had a humility in the post-troubles years that to me dictated a sense of remorse for the years of slaughter. That humility I find lacking in Adams, Robinson, Foster and to a certain extent Paisley who all appear/appeared to think that the peace process was their accomplishment as opposed to how they should feel; that the troubles was their fault.

It was a pretty desperate campaign really. I don't know how the people who killed Patsy Gillespie for example can sleep at night. My pal's dad was shot dead in front of him because he supplied the british army with construction materials. His lack of bitterness amazes me, I'd never get over it. This was in the early nineties and it just seems like a desperate waste of life.

I guess I'm republican - or staunchly nationalist anyway - but I find it very hard to justify and I'd be skeptical enough about Adams and McGuinness' intentions throughout it all. It's something I grapple with anyway.

Only for unionist intransigence, blatant discrimination and british arrogance the whole thing would have been avoided though.

[stew]

That article from Jude Collins hits the nail on the head. In particular the fact that Trimble and Robinson had to wait until he was dead before they could utter a positive sentiment about the man.
            In a way it sort of sums up the entire Unionist mindset of not an inch and lie down croppie. During the peace process Martin genuinely tried to reach out to the other side of the community. He tried to put himself in their shoes took risks and pushed the boundaries of his own Republicanism in order to show good faith and keep the peace.
            Look at what happened to any Unionist leader who ' did a Lundy ' . Trimble got the boot for the timmerity of attempting to power share. Eventually Paisley got the same treatment for daring to have a friendly relationship with Martin. And last but not least magic Mike got the boot for merely saying he would give his second preference to a party from the other side of the house.
             The very fact that our previous first minister has yet to ' decide if ' she would attend the funeral of her deputy first minister is all part of the same aul backward looking mindset.          Not that i would highly rate his intellect but sadly i'd say Jamie ' flegger' Bryson's views on Nationalism would broadly be in line with the majority of Loyalists and Unionism when he said that ' Sinn Fein are great at trying to reach out to Unionists but they dont really mean it as secretly they still want a United Ireland and that these acts of friendship were just another strategy'. Sadly with a few notable exceptions that is the Unionist mentality. They see it as a sign of weakness, when in fact reaching out to a future Nationalist majority is exactly what they should do. But alas they can't see the elephant in the room.

The buck plannng to blow unionists up a few years earlier would hardly find many friends in the unionist camp no matter how much he tried to reach out. It's not him that should have been in a position of power to begin with in the nationalist movement.

I think you've manage to miss the entire point of Jude's blog and my post.
     Anyway Who was the buck or buckos that planted the first bombs of the ' troubles ' ? 
   

First bombs or last it does not matter, bombs would have been unnecessary if the british had treated Catholics with a modicum of decency, they didnt and the result was decades of midery that impacted every family one way or the other.


The neanderthal that is Arlene Foster cannot decide to go to a fuckin funeral of a colleague she worked with because he was the leader of the IRA back in the day even though he helped bring us peace, hopefully the coming generations are a bit more enlightened than mine and get over the shit they never lived through.

[Windmill abu]

I come from a Republican background (Sinn Fein). My wife is from a Nationalist background (SDLP). We both had uncles shot dead during the troubles and our political outlooks are very different. One thing we do agree on however is that when a Nationalist politician makes any kind of attempt at reconciliation with their Unionist counterparts it is in variably met with rejection and suspicion. Each time it happens one or other of us will say the same thing "You can't educate pork"

[Milltown Row2]

I come from a Republican background (Sinn Fein). My wife is from a Nationalist background (SDLP). We both had uncles shot dead during the troubles and our political outlooks are very different. One thing we do agree on however is that when a Nationalist politician makes any kind of attempt at reconciliation with their Unionist counterparts it is in variably met with rejection and suspicion. Each time it happens one or other of us will say the same thing "You can't educate pork"

David Ervine was an exception then

[gallsman]

I come from a Republican background (Sinn Fein). My wife is from a Nationalist background (SDLP). We both had uncles shot dead during the troubles and our political outlooks are very different. One thing we do agree on however is that when a Nationalist politician makes any kind of attempt at reconciliation with their Unionist counterparts it is in variably met with rejection and suspicion. Each time it happens one or other of us will say the same thing "You can't educate pork"

David Ervine was an exception then

Sadly, that's very much the truth of it. Mike TV said that unionists could learn a lot from McGuinness' on how to reach out to the other community. Can't imagine many will have taken that well.

[vallankumous]

I understand what drive men of the 60's and 70's to join the IRA but I can't countenance some of their actions once they had joined it. Had they stuck to strictly military or strategic targets most of that would have been defensible but most of the time innocents were targeted. What did the deaths of Nicholas Knatchbull or Paul Maxwell have to do with republicanism or Irish independence? Posters regularly round on Fearon when he defends how the church abused and caused the deaths of hundreds of children but yet can find room to defend the IRA who were complicit in the deaths of many innocent women and children. Many here have recounted stories about the troubles but no amount of harassment at UDR checkpoints or guns being waved in your face is worth the lives of innocent children.

Leaving that aside, I had great time for Martin McGuinness. Too much has been made of his chuckle brother routine with Paisley and using Paisley as a counter-point. His nearest equivalent would have been David Ervine who was also also a paramilitary turned politician and also a man whom held my respect. To their credit both seen the futility of the bloodshed and had a humility in the post-troubles years that to me dictated a sense of remorse for the years of slaughter. That humility I find lacking in Adams, Robinson, Foster and to a certain extent Paisley who all appear/appeared to think that the peace process was their accomplishment as opposed to how they should feel; that the troubles was their fault.

Sadly the highlighted part is not the case.
There were many bad decisions and bad actions. Running the risk of being seen as heartless I do want to add some context.

The IRA were hailed as a major organised and guerrilla army. In reality they were not. This was a tag given to them to justify failed British policy and British Army actions.
Many actions carried out by the IRA were done by young men and women who were terrified, unskilled, angry and revengeful. A potent mix for disaster.
Your comment above is sweeping. I can't fathom that anyone ever thought they were going to kill children. Especially an 18 year old and a 19 year old who  tried to take a bomb to a Courthouse in a town they didn't know through a landscape peppered with military security and intelligence.

While you isolate child victims you omit so much else of the context. Regardless if you agree or not history tells us you are wrong. Harassment at check points, in prisons, at protests, in you home, at your place of work (not to mention murder) is cause for for violent reaction. Loyalists were also subject to this and their violent actions in return to IRA actions was also understandable in the real lives of those young people.

There is mountains of evidence of children being indirectly killed when guns and bombs are used in violent response. It's a global reality and it's terrifying. In my view that reality will never become a barrier to people engaging in armed conflict.


It's documented that Martin McGuinness was the top IRA man in Derry at 22 years old. I'd be surprised if he was commanding experienced or trained military personel.

[seafoid]

I understand what drive men of the 60's and 70's to join the IRA but I can't countenance some of their actions once they had joined it. Had they stuck to strictly military or strategic targets most of that would have been defensible but most of the time innocents were targeted. What did the deaths of Nicholas Knatchbull or Paul Maxwell have to do with republicanism or Irish independence? Posters regularly round on Fearon when he defends how the church abused and caused the deaths of hundreds of children but yet can find room to defend the IRA who were complicit in the deaths of many innocent women and children. Many here have recounted stories about the troubles but no amount of harassment at UDR checkpoints or guns being waved in your face is worth the lives of innocent children.

Leaving that aside, I had great time for Martin McGuinness. Too much has been made of his chuckle brother routine with Paisley and using Paisley as a counter-point. His nearest equivalent would have been David Ervine who was also also a paramilitary turned politician and also a man whom held my respect. To their credit both seen the futility of the bloodshed and had a humility in the post-troubles years that to me dictated a sense of remorse for the years of slaughter. That humility I find lacking in Adams, Robinson, Foster and to a certain extent Paisley who all appear/appeared to think that the peace process was their accomplishment as opposed to how they should feel; that the troubles was their fault.

Sadly the highlighted part is not the case.
There were many bad decisions and bad actions. Running the risk of being seen as heartless I do want to add some context.

The IRA were hailed as a major organised and guerrilla army. In reality they were not. This was a tag given to them to justify failed British policy and British Army actions.
Many actions carried out by the IRA were done by young men and women who were terrified, unskilled, angry and revengeful. A potent mix for disaster.
Your comment above is sweeping. I can't fathom that anyone ever thought they were going to kill children. Especially an 18 year old and a 19 year old who  tried to take a bomb to a Courthouse in a town they didn't know through a landscape peppered with military security and intelligence.

While you isolate child victims you omit so much else of the context. Regardless if you agree or not history tells us you are wrong. Harassment at check points, in prisons, at protests, in you home, at your place of work (not to mention murder) is cause for for violent reaction. Loyalists were also subject to this and their violent actions in return to IRA actions was also understandable in the real lives of those young people.

It's documented that Martin McGuinness was the top IRA man in Derry at 22 years old.

One aspect of the adoption of violence is that it is hard to turn it off
Another aspect is that it elevates sociopaths to positions they do not have in civilian life.

NI has always been dysfunctional. It would have been much better to restructure things in the 60s but the Unionists didn't want to.
Maybe the violence was inevitable. It wasn't sustainable. And there was an awful lot of cruelty on both sides.