Anyone else finding it wrong to see that murderous **** (deliberate * used) on TV shaking hands with the Queen and being involved with the peace process?

Yes of course the peace process is essential but terrorists who have blown up and murdered hundreds of innocent people should not be in this country as part of that process. Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams should be banned from ever setting foot in the UK let alone shaking hands with the Queen and being at a state banquet at Windsor Castle.

The SAS should have finished the job on those 2 and the rest of the terrorist scum 30 years ago.

For those who argue the IRA's inclusion in the peace process is critical, do you believe that OBL before his death would have ever been invited to the White House and to shake hands with the President to discuss the peace process? I don't think so.

 

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Mandela, Pol Pot, Gaddafi, Hussein, Collins, Robin Hood, Batman, Sharon, Mugabe, Che the list goes on.

We hate and promote in equal measure.

 

That old chestnut is as old as the hills. Freedom fighters in my book are people who fight a military invasion of their country directly against that military invasion. Murdering innocent men, women and children in shopping centres, pubs, city centres etc is in no way acts of freedom fighting.

 

I think it's a sign of how far things have moved on. All in all this is a good thing.

I find a certain amount of irony in your comments about terrorism, and your wish that the SAS had murdered him years ago.

We should welcome the fact that the likes of McGuinness are totally committed to peacful means. The alternative approach was too costly for everyone. Like it or not he is a democractically elected leader of his party, committed to the peace process and represents a large part of the Northern Irish community.

The OBL point is moot, as there is/was no peace process, I'm sure after 40 years of violence the US would be keen to find a way forward too.

 

If a child murderer comes out of prison and says i'm not going to kill any more children does that change who they are? No, they are still a child murderer. No difference with McGuinnes and his cronies.

 

Certainly doesn't change what he was, but he demonstrably isn't a supporter of terrorism for political means anymore.

I'm never going to defend what he was, or what was done by all party's in that dark period of our history. From his perspective QE2 and her predecessors have blood on their hands too. The problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn't actually get you anywhere

 

If we had never went in there nothing would have come from it. they didn't bomb the mainland for nothing, they bombed it for a reason. yet another case of us getting overly involved..

 

Well said.

 

When Churchill was the Governer of what is now Iraq he had permission to bomb the Marsh Arabs with mustard gas, sound familiar?

Having been subject to McGuinness and Adams antics very close up I speak from a position of experience. The majority of the US Senate shook hands with many so called freedom fighters including the Mujaheedine, the British sell huge amounts of military equipment to the Saudi's, they have a great reputation for their openess and inclusion.

Every nation not aligned to the former USSR was supplied with arms by the US, that worked well in Africa in the 70' and 80's. Isreal as an example blew many British soldiers up after WW2 in its fight for recognition, the first nation to recognise their independence and supplied weapons was the US.

Just another example of one mans oppressed nation and anothers evil empire.

 

We won, that's why they came to the table.

Whoop!

 

I assumed you was ex army not just from your username but from other threads over the years and so I was surprised by your views on McGuinness (not in a critical way, just surprised).

As I said above the peace process is pivotal to moving forward, I just don't believe having McGuinness over for tea at Windsor castle as a guest of the Queen is necessary. I find it a slap in the face to all those families who lost loved ones at the hands of the IRA bombers (both on the mainland and in NI) and a slap in the face to the British soldiers/security services who suffered at the hands of the IRA.

Politics seems an easy way out for them to get people off their backs about their murderous past.

 

Good post and exactly how I feel! All this 'let's be friends now' is a bit much to take after what he and Adams used to be involved in. Why not send someone less controversial?

 

Like it or not, he is the deputy first minister, so might be a bit rude to send the cleaner in his place

I don't particularly like the guy either, and certainly don't condone either of their past.
But life has moved on, and there are others - equally as bad as those two - now roaming free

 

Well maybe the fact he is the deputy first minister is the problem then!

Yep, but they are not lapping it up with the Queen.... who I seem to remember they had little time for, putting it mildly, just a few years ago!

As it happens I am on their side in terms of their goal, but obviously not in terms of their methods and I think the best thing Sinn Fein could have done would have been to instigate a process of replacing both Adams and McGuinness over time when they laid down their arms all those years ago now!

 

There are any number of versions of the past depending on your position.
It's more important that our visions of the future are more coherent.

 

You're right, there are many versions of the past, and they vary depending on who you're talking to!

As far as I'm concerned, the past is gone - and good riddance.

 

I do agree that it is a sign of how far we have come since the dark days of the troubles. It should also be remembered that there are elements around that hanker for a return to the methods of those dark days. I think McGuinness et al do have a vital role to play in helping keep these elements in check. This can only be for the good of the vast majority.

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that. He may just be keeping his powder dry but if the opportunity arose... Leopards and spots??

Both Adams and McGuiness were members of, or associated with, the IRA long after they claimed to have quit.

The only way forward is to grant a complete amnesty and let people speak the truth if it makes them feel better. No one is going to own up to anything if the threat of gaol hangs over them. Tough on those who have lost loved ones but that's just the way it has to be. Obviously South Africa is an example of what can be achieved and even Rwanda has settled down a bit.

I did wonder why McGuiness had to be involved at all as this is all about an Irish State visit so what's that got to do with NI?

dl

 

If you had won, they wouldn't have been at the table... they were at the table because they won

 

Totally, the first thought that entered my head when I saw them on the news.

Fair play to this victims father as well

 

You could replace him with 448 soldiers families and have "Tony Blair/George Bush" written there instead as a war criminal.

 

The thing is that we live in a democratic society; whatever view you hold of McGuinness as a person, he and his party have the second largest electoral mandate in NI. He is the deputy first minister in a coalition government in NI, and would claim to represent all those who live in the community he represents.

Norman Tebbit certainly didn't miss and hit the wall with his comments - again whatever view you might hold on McGuinness, he has handled that situation very well.

I do think he would gain more credibility by leading the way on the truth recovery process, I suspect he will shy away from it though until there is an absolute amnesty for anyone who admits involvment - he undoubtedly has blood on his hands.

What has been can not be changed, but for a better future for my children and my would be grand-children, I would rather McGuinness was the deputy head of state, than still in his role as Chief of Staff in the IRA.

 

Agree.

 

This

 

I think we'll agree to disagree on that point.

 

Simple: do you want peace in Northern Ireland? The war wasn't won by either side, and wasn't likely to be. If you want peace, there's always a price to pay, but it's usually a smaller price than war costs. In this case, this is part of the price for peace.

 

He should never have been allowed to fill such a position imho, irrespective of what it did for the peace process, he had blood on his hands and always will do and anywho it was over for them the moment Clinton stepped up to the plate.

 

Different thread for a different day.

 

The situation is - like it or not, but there are many 'worse boys' now roaming free as part of the peace agreement who are probably responsible for more bloodshed then him.

Also, like it or not, he and his mate have done quite a lot in their new positions.
Again, and further to above, I prefer to see them in the positions they are now, rather then the awful situation which N.I found itself in many moons ago.
Its a much better place

 

That is all fine and I have no argument with that however there should still be boundaries the UK keeps in not letting McGuinness or Adams set foot on the mainland where they used to be banned from for very good reason. Especially not inviting them to Windsor Castle for tea.