Martin Mc Guinness Passes Away at 66

[foxcommander]

The Indo sells that down south and the Belfast Telegraph up.north.

Are they not the same newspaper? If you look at their websites you wouldn't be able to tell the difference

Same parent company

Same newspaper then! Certainly won't have much different in their viewpoint. Wouldn't line the cat's litterbox with it.

[Owen Brannigan]

Chris Dillow is economics writer at the Investors Chronicle. He blogs at Stumbling and Mumbling and is the author of New Labour and the end of Politics

March 22, 2017

MARTIN MCGUINNESS & THE NATURE OF POLITICS

James O'Brien tweeted yesterday:McGuinness was both a murderous terrorist & a powerful force for peace. He changed. Our furiously binary zeitgeist can't compute such change. I want to expand on this, because it tells us something about the nature of politics generally.

I suspect McGuinness was a force for peace in part precisely because he was a murderous terrorist. Because his credentials as an IRA man were so strong, he could persuade hardline terrorists to give up violence in a way that more moderate republicans could not. Granted, his commitment to peace might, as Padraig says, have been "tactical rather than principled". And he might have adopted it from a position of weakness: by the 90s, the IRA was so chocka with MI5 agents that it resembled something from a G.K.Chesterton novel. But peace is peace.

There are many examples in politics of men changing events because their previous commitments gave them credibility with potential opponents of that change. We've even got a name for it: "Nixon goes to China". Nixon's impeccable anti-Communist credentials meant that he could begin détente in a way that more liberal men couldn't because of the fear of being labelled soft on communism. Similarly, Tony Blair was able to abandon Labour's Clause IV in part because he had the support of John Prescott, a man whose deeper roots in the party gave him more influence over Labour traditionalists than Blair alone could enjoy.

Perhaps a closer analogy with McGuinness's change, however, is the role Lyndon Johnson played in the passage of the Civil Rights Act. LBJ was a racist – certainly by today's standards and perhaps even by those of his time. Such attitudes, however, gave him influence with southern segregationists that Kennedy – who had proposed the Act – never had. LBJ thus managed to force the Act through Congress whereas Kennedy failed. JFK might have been more acceptable to decent people, but LBJ did the job.

LBJ was both a racist and an advancer of blacks' rights, just as McGuinness was both a murderer and a force for peace. And both men were one because they were the other.

George Bernard Shaw famously said that "all progress depends upon the unreasonable man*." This might be an exaggeration, but one way in which it is true is that the unreasonable man can persuade other unreasonable men in a way that moderates cannot.

It's in this context that James is right to decry our simplistic "binary zeitgeist". Many people think of politics as a low-grade morality play in which good people – people like us, naturally, because we lack the faculties of self-criticism – oppose bad people.  But it isn't always so. McGuinness and Johnson show that "bad" people can sometimes do good things, perhaps even for bad motives. And the converse can also be true: good people can do bad things. The social sciences are  often complexemergentprocesses: outcomes aren't always reducible to individuals' intentions.

Personally, I'd like to see less moral posturing and tribalism in politics and more inquiry into how to build structures that increase the chances of bad people doing good things and lessen the chances of good ones doing bad things. But this is a forlorn hope.

* It's sort of fitting that Chuck Berry should have died in the same week as Martin McGuinness, as he – in his very different way – is another example of how dubious characters can do great things.

[Il Bomber Destro]

The likes of Paisley and Mc Guinness probably regretted much of their earlier lives,when they reached the top of the greasy pole together.But this society is littered with "reformed" characters who either deny or minimalise their past.I know a guy who is a pastor in an evangelical church who was very strongly rumoured to be heavily involved in the sectarian slaughter of two young girls and a customer in a mobile shop 25 years ago,but refuses to go to the Police.

Paisley never murdered anyone. Pretty sure Martin did. Like it or not, that is a significant difference.  You cannot discount the heinous atrocities highlighted in Ed Moloney's article.

Paisley incited a lot though and as far as many are concerned has a lot of blood on his hands too. You may not think it is the same but many do - myself included.

So does that make it okay then?  I'm no fan of Paisley myself and respect McGuiness for successfully delivering peace, but the collective air brushing of history on here regarding the incidents in Moloney's article is the elephant in the room.

What did you think of Collins, Lemass, de Valera?

Pretty sure none stooped as low as the proxy bomb.

That didn't answer my question.

What did you think of Collins, Lemass and de Valera?

This thread is about Martin McGuiness - What do you think of his likely involvement in some of the murders highlihted in Moloney's article?

Suspected as you say. I'm wise enough to know war blurs lines, there is no defending some of the actions carried out by the Provos but every war or conflict will have these incidents across all sides. Martin McGuinness was an ordinary man who did extraordinary things due to the discrimination and state sponsored terrorism that was taking place in his own community. If you can't take that on board then there's no point discussing matters with you.

Now for the third time of asking.

What did you think of Collins, Lemass and de Valera?

For some reason it seems you are having difficulty applying your moral affliction to other parties, maybe because your ideals are not as pure as you'd like paint.

For what it's worth, Collins was one of the leading IRA men when 13 Protestant civilians were murdered in his home county of Cork over a short period of time. What do you think of Collins? A civilian informant was also murdered by Collins hit squad. What did you think of Collins?

Your comment re "Suspected as you say" speaks volumes.  The dogs in the street have a fair idea about what MMcG was involved in.  As such, you cannot claim there is "no point in discussing matters with you" if you are not going to accept his involvement.

As for your question, I would not condone any act of terrorism.  Not trying to provoke a response, but there is no excuse for the sectarian murder of fellow Protestant Irishmen or "suspected" informants.

So getting back to my original question.

What did you think of Collins, de Valera and Lemass?

You are quite happy to judge McGuinness on idle speculation and convenience but unwilling to comment on others with similar proximity and possible complicity to that you slate McGuinnes for. Why is that?

[Maurice Moss]

I will repeat, read James Kelly's Bonfires on the Hillsides.

Applesisapples, would you know where this book could be sourced? Wouldn't mind having a read over it.

[Newbridge Exile]

I will repeat, read James Kelly's Bonfires on the Hillsides.

Applesisapples, would you know where this book could be sourced? Wouldn't mind having a read over it.

I bought a copy on eBay tonight, will hopefully have it by start of week

[Applesisapples]

I will repeat, read James Kelly's Bonfires on the Hillsides.

Applesisapples, would you know where this book could be sourced? Wouldn't mind having a read over it.

Its on amazon

[michaelg]

The likes of Paisley and Mc Guinness probably regretted much of their earlier lives,when they reached the top of the greasy pole together.But this society is littered with "reformed" characters who either deny or minimalise their past.I know a guy who is a pastor in an evangelical church who was very strongly rumoured to be heavily involved in the sectarian slaughter of two young girls and a customer in a mobile shop 25 years ago,but refuses to go to the Police.

Paisley never murdered anyone. Pretty sure Martin did. Like it or not, that is a significant difference.  You cannot discount the heinous atrocities highlighted in Ed Moloney's article.

Paisley incited a lot though and as far as many are concerned has a lot of blood on his hands too. You may not think it is the same but many do - myself included.

So does that make it okay then?  I'm no fan of Paisley myself and respect McGuiness for successfully delivering peace, but the collective air brushing of history on here regarding the incidents in Moloney's article is the elephant in the room.

What did you think of Collins, Lemass, de Valera?

Pretty sure none stooped as low as the proxy bomb.

That didn't answer my question.

What did you think of Collins, Lemass and de Valera?

This thread is about Martin McGuiness - What do you think of his likely involvement in some of the murders highlihted in Moloney's article?

Suspected as you say. I'm wise enough to know war blurs lines, there is no defending some of the actions carried out by the Provos but every war or conflict will have these incidents across all sides. Martin McGuinness was an ordinary man who did extraordinary things due to the discrimination and state sponsored terrorism that was taking place in his own community. If you can't take that on board then there's no point discussing matters with you.

Now for the third time of asking.

What did you think of Collins, Lemass and de Valera?

For some reason it seems you are having difficulty applying your moral affliction to other parties, maybe because your ideals are not as pure as you'd like paint.

For what it's worth, Collins was one of the leading IRA men when 13 Protestant civilians were murdered in his home county of Cork over a short period of time. What do you think of Collins? A civilian informant was also murdered by Collins hit squad. What did you think of Collins?

Your comment re "Suspected as you say" speaks volumes.  The dogs in the street have a fair idea about what MMcG was involved in.  As such, you cannot claim there is "no point in discussing matters with you" if you are not going to accept his involvement.

As for your question, I would not condone any act of terrorism.  Not trying to provoke a response, but there is no excuse for the sectarian murder of fellow Protestant Irishmen or "suspected" informants.

So getting back to my original question.

What did you think of Collins, de Valera and Lemass?

You are quite happy to judge McGuinness on idle speculation and convenience but unwilling to comment on others with similar proximity and possible complicity to that you slate McGuinnes for. Why is that?

Can you not read?

[seafoid]

Collins is venerated but he could have been a Franco
DeValera was dreadful
Lemass got sense late in life.

Is mise, le meas

[Keyser soze]

Watching the documentary last night I as struck by how many of the people who were demonising Martin McGuiness would have been strong supporters of the marine who murdered a wounded man in cold blood getting his sentence reduced or conviction quashed.

The double standards of the brits is breathtaking.

Nowhere near as bad as some of the +++++ on this board though. 

[Rossfan]

As Michaelg seems to be if a Unionist persuasion I doubt he has much time for Collins, Dev etc etc.
But sure don't let that stop Bomber wasting pages of Gaaboard quoting himself

[johnneycool]

Watching the documentary last night I as struck by how many of the people who were demonising Martin McGuiness would have been strong supporters of the marine who murdered a wounded man in cold blood getting his sentence reduced or conviction quashed.

The double standards of the brits is breathtaking.

Nowhere near as bad as some of the +++++ on this board though. 

Aye, but yer man was suffering from PTSD so that made it alright even as he knew himself he was contravening the Geneva convention as he pulled the trigger so that makes it alright it seems.

[AhNowRef]

The brazen hypocrisy of the British & Unionists is absolutely breathtaking  ... Some outfit to be dealing with, and the worst thing is, it looks like this Tory government arent going anywhere for a long long time 

[michaelg]

Watching the documentary last night I as struck by how many of the people who were demonising Martin McGuiness would have been strong supporters of the marine who murdered a wounded man in cold blood getting his sentence reduced or conviction quashed.

The double standards of the brits is breathtaking.

Nowhere near as bad as some of the +++++ on this board though. 

Didn't see it myself - Who was it that was demonising Martin Mc Guiness?  The many victims of IRA terror, catholic and protestant alike, have every right to demonise him.

[Il Bomber Destro]

The likes of Paisley and Mc Guinness probably regretted much of their earlier lives,when they reached the top of the greasy pole together.But this society is littered with "reformed" characters who either deny or minimalise their past.I know a guy who is a pastor in an evangelical church who was very strongly rumoured to be heavily involved in the sectarian slaughter of two young girls and a customer in a mobile shop 25 years ago,but refuses to go to the Police.

Paisley never murdered anyone. Pretty sure Martin did. Like it or not, that is a significant difference.  You cannot discount the heinous atrocities highlighted in Ed Moloney's article.

Paisley incited a lot though and as far as many are concerned has a lot of blood on his hands too. You may not think it is the same but many do - myself included.

So does that make it okay then?  I'm no fan of Paisley myself and respect McGuiness for successfully delivering peace, but the collective air brushing of history on here regarding the incidents in Moloney's article is the elephant in the room.

What did you think of Collins, Lemass, de Valera?

Pretty sure none stooped as low as the proxy bomb.

That didn't answer my question.

What did you think of Collins, Lemass and de Valera?

This thread is about Martin McGuiness - What do you think of his likely involvement in some of the murders highlihted in Moloney's article?

Suspected as you say. I'm wise enough to know war blurs lines, there is no defending some of the actions carried out by the Provos but every war or conflict will have these incidents across all sides. Martin McGuinness was an ordinary man who did extraordinary things due to the discrimination and state sponsored terrorism that was taking place in his own community. If you can't take that on board then there's no point discussing matters with you.

Now for the third time of asking.

What did you think of Collins, Lemass and de Valera?

For some reason it seems you are having difficulty applying your moral affliction to other parties, maybe because your ideals are not as pure as you'd like paint.

For what it's worth, Collins was one of the leading IRA men when 13 Protestant civilians were murdered in his home county of Cork over a short period of time. What do you think of Collins? A civilian informant was also murdered by Collins hit squad. What did you think of Collins?

Your comment re "Suspected as you say" speaks volumes.  The dogs in the street have a fair idea about what MMcG was involved in.  As such, you cannot claim there is "no point in discussing matters with you" if you are not going to accept his involvement.

As for your question, I would not condone any act of terrorism.  Not trying to provoke a response, but there is no excuse for the sectarian murder of fellow Protestant Irishmen or "suspected" informants.

So getting back to my original question.

What did you think of Collins, de Valera and Lemass?

You are quite happy to judge McGuinness on idle speculation and convenience but unwilling to comment on others with similar proximity and possible complicity to that you slate McGuinnes for. Why is that?

Can you not read?

I haven't seen you say what you think of Lemass, Collins and de Valera?

I won't be accepting catch all statements on this either.

So what did you think of them?

[haranguerer]

Watching the documentary last night I as struck by how many of the people who were demonising Martin McGuiness would have been strong supporters of the marine who murdered a wounded man in cold blood getting his sentence reduced or conviction quashed.

The double standards of the brits is breathtaking.

Nowhere near as bad as some of the +++++ on this board though. 

Didn't see it myself - Who was it that was demonising Martin Mc Guiness?  The many victims of IRA terror, catholic and protestant alike, have every right to demonise him.

I think his point is the hypocrisy - venerating the marine who executed the wounded fighter. I agree with you, and I'm sure you couldn't argue with the many victims of British state terror having every right to demonise the British state.