Martin McGuinness

Mandela's history Luckygirl
He signed off on the deaths of innocent people, lots of them

Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights

-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983

-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985

-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988

-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986

-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead

-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987

-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988

Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.”

He wasn't a saint he was a freedom fighter who suffered for his beliefs

stop digging trisher It's plain what you said, to you, he is simply a disgruntled
Conservative.I refuse to debate your comments any more.

When Tony Blair made his speech about the peace train leaving the station and anyone not on it would be left behind (or words to that effect) McGuiness, Adams, et al, ripped off their balaclavas and jumped aboard. Even the IRA hardliners could see the writing was on the wall.

Good career move.

It's too much to expect a person who has seen a loved one experience such pain to be dispassionate about an individual who was one of a group responsible for that. Personally I'd hate them for ever and it would colour my judgement henceforth. Disgruntled is really an understatement, Colin Parry's words were indeed eloquent there can't be a day that goes by when he doesn't think of his young son and what he, as a parent, lost that day. Under the circumstance I think Norman Tebbit is entitled to feel the way he does.

I think so too.

Only a disgruntled Conservative could rubbish a process which has brought years of peace. rar but I accept you are unable to give another explanation for his words.
merlotgran whatever the reason they did it, and there was at the time considerable opposition from other IRA members with real experience of dealing out punishments to those who stepped out of line. So it wasn't simply a question of doing something safe and easy.

Do supporters of firebrands have any empathy with innocent victims or is it all about the cause

Not unable but cannot debate with somebody who has your views on this trisher

I expect what Norman Tebbit says is probably true or partly so. But it's had the desired effect, so for that we must be grateful.

rar so it's OK to criticise the peace process but not OK to question that?
TerriBull I have sympathy for all the victims of violence but I am not so blind that I don't understand that there were victims on all sides of the conflict and sometimes innocent bystanders were victims of the violence perpetrated by all the parties in this. My main complaint is that successive British governments failed to deal effectively with the conflict and in fact escalated and perpetuated the violence. To blame one contributor to the conflict is to misrepresent events.

To blame one contributor to the conflict is to misrepresent events.

Does this mean we are only blaming McGuinness for acts of violence, trisher?

We're talking about him because he's dead!

Then talk about him in the context of the conflict merlotgran not as if only the IRA committed acts of violence.
I don't like this idea that some people become saints- like Mandela but others must be castigated as violent criminals. People are complicated, the conflict was complicated and violent. Simple condemnations do nothing to explain or improve anything.

If you don't mind, trisher, I'll talk about him in the context of the murdering thug that he was.

DH's more cynical view was that McGuinness entered into the peace process to avoid being prosecuted for murder.

He died in his bed with his family around him - his victims were not given that chance, nor were some of them allowed to grow up and have families of their own.

Unfortunately I do not believe in hell, but he is dead and will turn to dust (as will we all).

What previous British governments including Labour ones did or didn't do can't be altered so why go on about it. Martin McG was a terrorist turned peace politician. Only he knows his reasons, it's to be hoped they were good ones but who knows, that's between him and his maker, we can never categorically know. Both he and Iain Paisley (lets not forget him) including others did at last create peace in NI which God willing will last. Perhaps the end justifies the means, but you can't expect Norman Tebbit or others to see it that way. The fact of him being a conservative politician is actually neither here nor there and I can't quite understand why this was mentioned, or does this fact make it ok to cause him and his wife life changing injuries, a punishment for being a hated Tory?

RIP MM. I think he was a courageous man in many ways. Bitterness and hatred was at the heart of the Troubles and the future should be about forgiveness and compassion.

We can talk about him however we want to, as you seem determined to talk about Norman Tebbitt as you wish too and his innocent wife who was a victim of the IRA.

It is McGuinness who has died, that is why we are discussing him and not discussing anyone from the Unionist side.

'Complicated' does not justify murder, knee-capping, nail bombs etc.

To discuss the IRA without discussing the Unionist side or the others involved in NI is a bit like talking about Santa but not mentioning Christmas. Still feel free to continue with the lack of understanding, the condemnation and the blinkered attitude that resulted in years of violence. I suppose no one can argue that in taking the stance he did at least Martin McGuiness moved things forward and contributed to the years of peace, if it was left to some on gransnet we'd still have violence on all sides. Just a word of caution the situation is very unstable just now and blinkered attitudes and uncalled for criticism could tip the balance.

I wasn't aware anyone else had died just now, I thought we were discussing McGuinness and his life.

if it was left to some on gransnet we'd still have violence on all sides
If it was up to most of us we wouldn't have violence to start with.
All sides of what anyway?

Is belligerent pacifist a contradiction in terms?

Just a little correction trisher when you say " sometimes innocent bystanders were the victims of the violence". I would like to repeat what I said in my earlier post, that MAINLY it was the innocent people going about their daily business who were killed and injured by IRA violence in the early years of the 'Troubles' before it escalated into full blown sectarian strife. The aim, I think, was to destabilise society and call into question the status quo.

What those of you who are so angry about MMcG need to remember is that there would probably never have been a peace process without him and many more would have died. The only people who had any influence on the Provisional IRA were the leaders themselves. It could never have been imposed from outside. Not by the British government, Bill Clinton or any other international peace negotiator. The people who controlled, and still control, what happens on the ground here are the community leaders on both sides. This was MMcG's legacy to us here in N Ireland.

And if it was his 'keep out of gaol card' it worked for which people could heave a sigh of relief.

I would agree that Norman Tebbit's views are tainted by his personal tragedy, and that there was no need to criticise the peace process. But I imagine many others in a similar position would do the same. Mentioning him at all is a total red herring and seems to be no more than a grab at an opportunity to have a go at the Tories. Jud, Swanny - god posts. As for MM, he was a terrorist in a country which at the time was thriving on hatred and with many others just the same as him -determined to have their way by whatever means - whether the objective was a united ireland or a continuation of the union. To be honest, I've no idea how I would have turned out if I had been brought up over there in either camp. Hopefully no supporter of violence but who knows how they would react when brought up in such a situation. In another life MM might have been everyone's favourite high school teacher. In any event he may have started out badly, but he ended up well, which seems to me better than the other way around. RIP.

"God posts" Fitzy? Why thank you but I don't pretend to omnipotence

Fitzy54 Tebbit was mentioned by Marelli who thought "hit the nail on the head' I simply answered that.

Trisher, my mistake. Apologies.