Sunday
29Jun2008
TERRORIST CONDEMNS TERRORISTS...
Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 12:36PM
Just watched IRA terrorist godfather Martin McGuinness being interviewed on TV about the recent murder of a young man in Londonderry by dissident Republican terrorists. Martin the Statesman intoned that there was no popular support for this type of killing and he urged people to turn away from violence. I suppose when Martin and the gang were ensuring blood ran down the same streets of Londonderry and elsewhere the "popular support" they enjoyed made all those murders different to the one he condemns. I also suppose the murders of Robert McCartney and Paul Quinn - carried out by IRA terrorists - have no causal link to the savagery of the IRA. Listening to scum like McGuinness talk about the futility of terrorism when carried out by anybody but the IRA is akin to listening to Robert Mugabe hail the virtues of democracy. It sickens me to hear this goon talk and to see the lickspittle media treat him with honour.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (13)
The sad thing is besides what yousay that his words on this subject are the pot calling the kettle black.
This mans very presence in Government is an advocating banner flag to use terror to gain what you want. Terror worked to get him a seat at the respectable table, why should anyone else refrain from doing the same?
Exactly - he bombed and shot his way to power. He is a walking advertising campaign for terrorism and yet when I say this I am the one who is damned.
McGuinness supports the rule of law - end off:
Martin is of course a dubious symbol of respect for the rule of law, but under the circumstances it is better he's condemning some attack than making some excuses. In time his generation of participants in the prior violence will be replaced by a newer generation and the cycle of violence will be broken.
I agree with you. I also agree with Marty, in that there is no popular support for this type of killing, I doubt there is support for any type of killing.No one wants it. Sad thing is over the years the public here have got used to news involving 'spectaculars' and 'outrages' which I think has turned us into junkies for that sort of thing. We focus on it instead of welcoming the lack of it, and don't see that this is not the norm anymore.
I welcome the fact that this is not the norm anymore and that now people in all areas have access to the police. The police are getting a bad press, three hours to turn up to the scene in this murder, and the sad outcome of the McCartney trial.
Hopefully things will continue to improve.
Terrorism, armed struggle, call it what you will, did not bring Martin McGuiness to power.
The voters did. From the election of Bobby Sands it was obvious that there were far more people who agreed with the republican analysis of the situation than previously believed.
The British policy of criminalisation was in tatters, another in a long line of failed policies. Both sides had to figure out what the implications of popular support for republicans were. Sinn Fein moved into electoral politics, the Anglo-Irish Agreement got Dublin involved and a way out of the conflict began to emerge.
Of course the case for armed struggle still exists. Any Irish person can legitimately argue for their right to take arms against the British occupation of the six counties. The job for hose of us who support the Agreement is to defeat that argument in republican terms.
From that point of view people like Martin McGuinness are absolutely essential. Like you David, the dissidents will claim they are doing no more than McGuinness did himself.
But the Agreement changes everything. As has been pointed out there are more people in the north for the Agreement than there are for either a united Ireland or a united Kingdom.
On the island of Ireland there has never been a bigger mandate for anything. To be a democrat and a republican is to accept the will of the Irish people. Our struggle for freedom must continue through the Agreement.
Terrorism, armed struggle, call it what you will, did not bring Martin McGuiness to power.
No.
Plan A was to bomb and shoot their way to a united Ireland. When it became obvious (around 1990) that Plan A would not succeed, they switched to Plan B which was to bomb and shoot their way to the conference table. Plan B succeeded and although a united Ireland was not achieved, a significant weakening of the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain was what emerged in the Belfast Agreement.
Peter
The SDLP were at the same conference table. How did they make it? Nobody was there without an electoral mandate. As for a weakening of the union, yes it is weaker. But that is unionists own fault. Because they wouldn't share power with the SDLP in 1974 they ended up with Sinn Fein in power and a British government less sympathetic to unionism than any before it.
Henry
I agree with your point about 1974. But it is idle to pretend that the IRA terorist campaign had nothing to do with Sinn Fein's presence at the conference in 1998.
Only in the sense that the IRA were a manifestation of the problem. The problem was that there was no political consensus in the north. That had been resolved under Orange rule by suppression of nationalists.
And when that didn't work it was replaced by an attempt to define the problem as a military one (both the IRA and the British made that mistake)
Some on both sides are still attracted to that kind of failed "one more heave" thinking.
Sinn Fein could have been at Sunningdale in the early 70s if they had been committed to peaceful means. So in reality all the years of violence from all sides didn't change the political reality in any way.
The peace process was about getting the Republican Movement to turn away from violence and embrace politics. They had shown they could not be defeated by military means. So it was not a surrender. But neither could their armed campaign change the underlying political problem. What in reality did they gain that the SDLP hadn't already got at Sunningdale? Prisoner releases? Maybe but people were in prison because of the armed struggle so it was hardly a victory to get them out.
If somebody proposed an armed struggle with the sole objective of obtaining the release of people captured during the struggle it would appear a tad pointless would it not.
So again, what did the IRA win that the SDLP had not already won at Sunningdale?
Marty has obviously forgot about his Derry Brigade strapping Patsy Gillespie into his van, placing a bomb beside him then getting him to drive to his death at a check point killing six soldiers.Marty's men were very good at killing local Catholic's when it suited their warped sectarian agenda.
When the war criminal speaks about justice no right thinking person will listen.
Nigel, look up false flag operations.
The lutta continua!