Thread: Martin McGuiness RIP

Ah, so you're having a wake. a grand Irish tradition. Good boy.

I had a drink in memory of Martin, too.

Not so much a wake as a celebration of death.

Well, I hope you and your mates have a good time harry,...who knows which one among you is next, eh?

Originally Posted by ENT

Well, I hope you and your mates have a good time harry,...who knows which one among you is next, eh?

Plod can deal with it.

After all, the fenian kiddie fiddlers have been reduced to petty drug dealers these days.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

Well, I hope you and your mates have a good time harry,...who knows which one among you is next, eh?

Plod can deal with it.

After all, the fenian kiddie fiddlers have been reduced to petty drug dealers these days.

The petty drug dealers are the Loyalists. Hence Adair and co fleeing to Scotland after their dirty little turf war got out of hand.

Thats Johnny Adair. Google him if you've no idea who he is.

Originally Posted by Seekingasylum

I think the arrest of the two paratroopers who murdered most of the victims on Bloody Sunday would help even up the score of things.

That is bollix Thegent and you're deliberately misleading people. You are making out that these ex paras were involved in shooting people on
Bloody Sunday'.
The 2 along with a third, who since died, are believed to have murdered Official IRA commander John McCann, who was shot dead in central Belfast in 1972. So stick that in your Republican make believe story books.

Oh...you're right. It was seven paratroopers.




17 December 2015
Northern Ireland


Ex-soldiers who face questioning over Bloody Sunday have won their High Court battle against being transferred to Northern Ireland for police interview.

Thirteen people were shot dead in Londonderry on 30 January 1972, and a 14th victim died later, after troops opened fire on a civil rights march.

Last month, seven former paratroopers asked the court to stop them being arrested and taken to Northern Ireland.

Police said they would factor in the ruling as they continue to investigate.
he fatal shootings were the subject of a 12-year public inquiry led by Lord Saville.

The Saville Report, published in 2010, unequivocally blamed the army for the civilian deaths and exonerated those who were killed.

Prime Minister David Cameron accepted the findings of the report and made a public apology to the victims.

The Saville Report also found that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to help the injured and dying.
The former Parachute Regiment members launched their judicial review action at the High Court in London against the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).

An earlier hearing was told that former paratroopers had no issue with being interviewed and would co-operate and that the court challenge revolved around where they would be interviewed.

A lawyer for the men said the issue at the heart of their application was that the men should not be arrested and interviewed in Northern Ireland.

The former soldiers' legal action was lodged after one of their colleagues was arrested in County Antrim and interviewed at a police station in Belfast, before being released on bail the following day.

Bloody Sunday: Ex-paratroopers win legal bid against transfer to Northern Ireland - BBC News

It always seems that the innocent person who gets shot by the army was either running away, was unarmed and totally innocent. What we have to keep in mind is that a gun was worth its weight in gold to the IRA, UDA etc. When a para military is sent out on an active patrol he cannot comeback without his gun. He'd be shot by his own side just for that fcuk up.
So when sent out to shoot whoever the shooter will be accompanied by one or more minders. That/The minder was there to spirit away the gun in the event the shooter getting compromised. His only importance now, once he's been shot by the army, is to be used as propaganda for the paramilitaries that another innocent unarmed man was shot by soldiers in the back for just running away.
Okay there must be witnesses? Does anyone believe that witnesses will come forward in defense of the soldiers? If anything they will shut up or side on the dead shooter. Logic tells you this.
What has happened in the Bloody Sunday incident and many other shootings is the fear of genuine witnesses coming forward to say how things really were.
Unless any of you have been on the ground during the troubles and have seen things for what they really were then you should shut the fcuk up and keep reading your war story books.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

It always seems that the innocent person who gets shot by the army was either running away, was unarmed and totally innocent. What we have to keep in mind is that a gun was worth its weight in gold to the IRA, UDA etc. When a para military is sent out on an active patrol he cannot comeback without his gun. He'd be shot by his own side just for that fcuk up.
So when sent out to shoot whoever the shooter will be accompanied by one or more minders. That/The minder was there to spirit away the gun in the event the shooter getting compromised. His only importance now, once he's been shot by the army, is to be used as propaganda for the paramilitaries that another innocent unarmed man was shot by soldiers in the back for just running away.
Okay there must be witnesses? Does anyone believe that witnesses will come forward in defense of the soldiers? If anything they will shut up or side on the dead shooter. Logic tells you this.
What has happened in the Bloody Sunday incident and many other shootings is the fear of genuine witnesses coming forward to say how things really were.
Unless any of you have been on the ground during the troubles and have seen things for what they really were then you should shut the fcuk up and keep reading your war story books.

During the troubles 302 people died at the hands of the British Army in the North of Ireland. The youngest was 13 years old. Are you seriously trying to say that all these deaths were justified. The 302 doesn't include the Catholics who were murdered by the Loyalist death squads in collusion with the British security services.

Christy Moore sings at the grave of Martin McGuinness

Meanwhile I'm guessing there was a right old sash bash going on elsewhere.

Statistics can be presented in lots of different ways, biased at any old angle, depending on who you're trying to convince.

Have a read of this article to look at how many were killed by whom during the Troubles.

Statistics of the Conflict and Conflict of Statistics : The Pensive Quill

mcguinness was a murderer, he was nothing more.

and those that glorify him as some kind of saintly saviour are deluded fools.

the following article should correct the faulty assumptions of those fools.

I wouldn’t dream of crediting the murderer Adrian Ajao, also known as Khalid Masood, with a sense of irony, but his choice of last week for his horrific attack on the public, police and Parliament suggested he might have had one.

Across the Irish Sea, as Ajao struck, another “depraved” terrorist (let’s use Mrs May’s entirely appropriate adjective), Martin McGuinness, was mouldering in his coffin, between a death Lord Tebbit described as making the world a sweeter place and a funeral at which the psychopathic IRA gangster and murderer was fawned on by some who deludedly consider themselves international exemplars of liberal decency.

How would one explain to an intelligent child, for example, this paradox: that some who, on news of McGuinness’s death, prostrated themselves before his memory for having been a “man of peace” were within 24 hours denouncing an act by Ajao identical to those McGuinness perpetrated or ordered: the slaying of innocent people in order to provoke feelings of terror and submission in the society under attack.

One could contend that McGuinness had become part of a “peace process”, whereas Ajao died an unrepentant enemy of those he targeted. Sadly, such a justification would not be true. Or one might cite The Guardian newspaper, which said “fate propelled” McGuinness into violence; and which therefore swallowed whole the murderer’s line that all the IRA’s wickedness was Britain’s fault.


Ignorant people have equated McGuinness with Nelson Mandela: but President Mandela, because he was a black man, was denied the right to participate in democracy. Growing up, McGuinness certainly witnessed anti-Catholic bigotry, but all his adult life he had the vote, and laws against sectarian discrimination changed Ulster. His idea of a Marxist united Ireland could not prevail democratically, so he chose murder instead – just like Ajao.

Speaking in the Commons on Thursday, the Prime Minister intoned that “our resolve will never waver in the face of terrorism”. What resolve, other than that to appease? A few hundred yards from where Mrs May spoke, some of McGuinness’s friends had, 38 years earlier almost to the day, murdered Airey Neave.

That, in turn, was but a few steps from where Ajao murdered the heroic Pc Keith Palmer, having just slaughtered three other innocent people and injured many more. Those of us who remember Airey Neave’s murder recall solemn expressions by politicians of how, to coin a phrase, our resolve would never waver in the face of terrorism.

Yet we have lived long enough to see McGuinness (thanks to institutional appeasement) become deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, to see our Queen forced to break bread with him, and to see a former president of the United States – albeit one of the sleaziest in history – pour treacle on him at his funeral.

McGuinness was believed to have committed several murders himself. He also, as an IRA commander, expanded the categories of those the IRA considered “legitimate targets”. One of his most notorious crimes was to order a man to drive a van packed with explosives to an Army base: and when the unfortunate man, whose “crime” had been to work there as a cleaner, tried to warn soldiers, the very fact of his opening the door detonated the explosives, killing him and five soldiers.

The “human bomb” was but one of McGuinness’s grotesqueries, as well as killing soldiers and RUC officers, car bombings, kneecappings, punishment beatings and the rest of the IRA’s armoury of intimidation so attractive to psychotics such as him. He sat on the IRA Council that authorised the Brighton bomb in 1984 and the Enniskillen Remembrance Day atrocity in 1987, in which 11 people died. But worst of all, and despite the nauseating protestations of others to the contrary, McGuinness died, like Ajao, still believing violence was a legitimate political weapon.


If you were a young, disaffected Muslim undergoing radicalisation, what would McGuinness mean to you? Even if you and your fellow extremists only partly succeeded in your plan to Islamify Britain, would you not be exulted on your death – irrespective of how many police officers, soldiers, women and children you had killed in the process? Would you not feel you could pursue your cause by terrorist means – because memories are short, and you would, eventually, get away with it – as McGuinness did?

Wouldn’t you examine a society whose politicians, past and present, praise a dead terrorist, having appeased him while he lived, even though he had engaged in acts that most right-thinking people consider wicked, criminal and heinous? And wouldn’t you consider it so weak-willed that you could, with impunity, just carry on murdering?

Ian Paisley Junior, son of the former Northern Ireland first minister, said in defence of McGuinness that it wasn’t how one began one’s life that mattered, it was how one ended it. McGuinness ended as a constitutional politician, apparently, but also as an unconvicted murderer who never admitted or apologised for his crimes. In his last broadcast interview he said he had no regrets. Morally, therefore, he was no different from Ajao. And those who would emulate Ajao see the victory of this IRA murderer, and feel empowered to carry on.

Norman Tebbit was right: McGuinness engaged in the so-called “peace process” because he had lost. In the Nineties, when McGuinness’s friend Bill Clinton was president, the IRA could still rely on American money to buy arms from Libya and from bazaars in eastern Europe. After 9/11, terrorism lost its glamour and appeal to most Americans, and the money dried up. The IRA, already suffering internal splits and badly damaged by the security forces, was on its knees.


The Blair government, however, ignored the IRA’s defeat. It had no need to thank McGuinness and others for calling off their dogs: the dogs were toothless. McGuinness’s choice, and that of other IRA murderers, was either to embrace the chance Tony Blair had given them to wipe the slate clean, or risk being prosecuted. The IRA was riddled with informers, and it could only be a matter of time before reality caught up with the likes of McGuinness.

This was the man whom Mr Blair praised for his “courage” and “determination”, and from whose life he felt we should “draw inspiration”. I am sure countless Islamists draw enormous inspiration from a mass murderer escaping justice, sitting down to dinner with the Queen and being eulogised by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. It inspires them to continue, for they see only a political class that, in the end, will appease them, however glorious its rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of an atrocity. They see us as fundamentally decadent. And they are right.

the telegraph.

All the week end rebels back out
Me and my brother lost count of the amount of gobshites around Dublin who threatened us with the RA shout, and we are connected
Most just connected with the pub floor they where mouthing off in
A lot of drugs where sent from Liverpool to IRA members and that is s fact, not just that hateful tool Adair
Mostly to Dublin and then shipped up North

Originally Posted by taxexile

mcguinness was a murderer, he was nothing more.

and those that glorify him as some kind of saintly saviour are deluded fools.

the following article should correct the faulty assumptions of those fools.



the telegraph.

Got a link for that rancid opinion piece, or does the writer want to stay anonymous?
Or does one need to trawl through yards more of the Telegraph's unsubstantiated opinion pieces to arrive at the writer's name?

Anyone believing the bigoted liar writing it really needs his head read.

simon heffer wrote it.

Heffer is a second rate fat arrogant cvunt of a rabid right wing hack who pimps for the Mail and the Telegraph. It would'nt be so bad if he just stuck to his usual baiting and cheap rhetoric but the silly fucker simply can't help himself when it comes to spouting lies as an embellishment to his pseudo- demagoguery.

The Mail is his natural home.

Only a superannuated sanctimonious ageing northern tyke who quaffs deeply from the cup of dyspeptic curmudgeonliness could possibly waste their time reading such sribblings.

Originally Posted by taxexile

you and ent sharing a bed.

Dats SA Irish upbringing, only one mattress for 7 kids so they got used to sharing.

Originally Posted by taxexile

insomnia again? more deranged nocturnal rantings.

whod a thunk it. the blind leading the blind.

you and ent sharing a bed. whatever next, a mussiphobic duet perhaps.

Not at all.
Just the obviously inevitable conclusion (with reliable reference) arrived at by separate pathways, that Heffer's bigoted rants are nothing less than pap for the gullible.