|
|
Post by bearhunter on Feb 28, 2008 8:45:50 GMT
"nothing but bad will come out of it" so by that argument, I wouldn't be asking for HMG's side of things either. It's all or nothing on both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Feb 28, 2008 9:35:52 GMT
Given his position he shouldn't of said it but SF are taking alot of hits from die hard republicans who claim they are sell outs etc etc. Old Marty is merely trying to show the die hard republican still within him. Being seen all cosy with Paisley does Marty as many favours within republicanism as it does Paisley with Unionism. Expect little outbursts like these from both sides as a way of macho posturing. Did anyone ever doubt what McGuinness would of felt like?? Has this shocked any Unionists?? Hardly think so. He was from the other side and i understand his feelings. Just like i'd of like to have seen every IRA man, supporter, fundraiser, political apologist ,dead.
Hopefully he has moved on and this is his feelings from the past which i firmly believe it is, like my own.....sort of ;D ;D ;D
It was ill advised and Marty has simply given old time Unionists great ammunition to attack everything SF.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Feb 28, 2008 9:40:30 GMT
"nothing but bad will come out of it" so by that argument, I wouldn't be asking for HMG's side of things either. It's all or nothing on both sides. Just made that point on another thread. You're an intelligent man bearhunter!  |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 28, 2008 13:51:15 GMT
"nothing but bad will come out of it" so by that argument, I wouldn't be asking for HMG's side of things either. It's all or nothing on both sides. Not really, its become irrelevant what his role in the IRA was now that hes the deputy first minister. Only people out for blood want to know, I couldn't give a shite what his role was. Unless ofcourse those people who are out for blood are somehow more important? |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 28, 2008 13:58:54 GMT
So Jim do you want to know the factual role of the British in what happened here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 28, 2008 15:00:08 GMT
I already know a lot of it, but if it means a better shot at real peace then no. I don't want to know nor do I care anymore.
Not right now, anyway, things are too fragile.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Feb 28, 2008 15:49:32 GMT
That's a good point Jim. Things are far too shakey, sensitive and raw to do such a thing now. At the moment, all it could take is for some crazy incident at a parade, or a dissent republican attack to set things right on the edge. No point adding fuel to dry kindle. It'll mostly come out naturally over time, hopefully in a proper spirit of reconciliation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 28, 2008 21:32:48 GMT
I totally disagree with that assumption, if people like McGuiness came clean at least people would know, if all sides or rather those who should be under scrutiny came clean we would all know. That is if they were telling the truth and by doing so I believe that we could move on from that as this is part of the healing process. To forget/ignore or brush things under the carpet is only going to hold things back, the sheer hypocricy of sinn fein calling for this enquiry and demanding people being sacked etc only adds fuel to the fragile situation. Now if they came clean then that is a different ball game and it IMO would help Unionists immensely.
Hiding from it, avoiding it only adds to current Unionist feelings. If I stole from each of you and you knew I did it but we said we would move on from it and try to forget about it then there would always b the doubts, always the suspician etc, but if I sat yuo down and explained myself I think as much as I had done wrong you would respect me to some extent to owning up and explaining myself. Then if I was trying to change my ways you all may have more belief and faith in it.
Thats how I see it all anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Feb 29, 2008 10:14:07 GMT
As far as we're concerned, you did steal something from us! Our land! (only kidding!!) |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 29, 2008 15:30:10 GMT
No Wasp, don't take us for fools you know fine rightly that ic McG came "clean" then every buckin' unionist, loyalist and politician not in SF would be on a man hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 29, 2008 15:56:50 GMT
No Wasp, don't take us for fools you know fine rightly that ic McG came "clean" then every buckin' unionist, loyalist and politician not in SF would be on a man hunt. Bollocks Jim, yes ther may be some who will go and we arfe supposed to sit in government with them etc, but they and alot more are saying it now because of his and his partys past and what they are currently doing to antagonize Unionists. For me I hate him with a passion, I hope he along with his comrades die a slow and agonizing death where they suffer unbelievable pain and torment. Now you know how I feel for the bastard I am telling you now if McGuinness gave an account of his actions or should I say a truthful account of his actions as we all know he has changed his story a few times then I would at least say well now we know and would lose interest in pursuing the subject. If he showed true remorse then I would certainly be willing to make the step and along with the right conditions support Stormont and move away from challenging sinn fein bull shit and rhetoric at every turn. I would not feel the need to point out there hypocricy because at least I would have the acknowledgement from the horses mouths. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 29, 2008 17:07:28 GMT
Its not "there may" be some, its there will be many.
Right, everyone knows he was in the IRA, but not many people know the extent. Lets take for granted he was at the very top of the IRA (which even I doubt he was, but this is for talks sake), and was the ringleader in certain events that some unionists to try to crack on about. Would people honestly accept him more as first minister than if they didnt know? I doubt it very very very much.
It suits you for people to know what he done 20-30 years ago, you're anti government anyway. I honestly don't think you would ose interest in the subject at all and certainly other parties wouldnt.
What if he doesn't show "true remorse"? What if he didnt do that much to show remorse? Thats like hoping Paisley will show true remorse and say he was wrong for 50 years of secterian hate speeches and rallying young men out to "war" for god and ulster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 29, 2008 22:37:24 GMT
As things stand all Unionists think this about him.
The difference here is the fact he is deputy first minister and must be under public scrutiny, just like everyone else in office. Leaving aside his hypocritical stance shouldn't he come clean considering his position. Now if he does that will put an end to opinionated thinking and assumptions because the people he rules over so to speak will know exactly his crimes. Suspician only builds on mistrust, and mistrust holds everyhting back.
Nevermind 20-30 years ago, I am talking aout his role in the troubles, his role in forced suicide bombings, his role in telling a mother her son would be safe and the ira only wanted to talk to him amongst other things. Don't these people have a right to know the way republcians say people have a right to know the truth about any questionable British security force actions? Or are these people less important because it may show sinn fein ira in a bad light AGAIN?
First of all Paisley is a wanker and I wouldn't believe Lundy's oath so there is no point using him as an example. Paisley should explain himself, he should come clean in everything that he done that was questionable. The same goes for McGuinness. Maybe he is too worried about being revealed as an informer which is possible. Apart from that why shouldn't he come clean?
To do with remores we already know he is a hate filled scumbag and Unionists would prefer Adams to McGuiness given a choice, so we don't expect any remorse from a psychopath like him just the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 29, 2008 22:49:53 GMT
Firstly, public scrutiny is for what he does today, not 30 years ago. He was not an MLA back then.
What are you on about? More IRA whinging and "less important" people, wha? His role in the troubles has no bearing on his job as a minister.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Feb 29, 2008 22:56:12 GMT
Firstly, public scrutiny is for what he does today, not 30 years ago. He was not an MLA back then. What are you on about? More IRA whinging and "less important" people, wha? His role in the troubles has no bearing on his job as a minister. WTF Jim? Are you saying that a minister that has had a shady past, a past involved in terrorism has nothing to do with now? So if the head of specail branch was now deputy minister wouldn't sinn fein be saying similar to me, wouldn't they object to a minister with such a past, would thewy demand to know his exact role??? WHy BTW do republicans call for this enquiry and that enquiry, call for heads to role etc for what people done years ago, yet don't allow this to be used on them. Why do you keep saying 30 years ago, the troubles were alot more recent than 30 years ago. |
|
