Queen Meets Ex- IRA Commander

First of all - no racist or sectarian views should be projected on this thread

This is huge as it is the first a republican has ever shaken hands with a monarch. Despite the views of him being a thug, criminal or hypocrite,this is completely dependent on one's perspective of historical events. He is branded with these labels as criminal and terrorist because he had possibly been responsible for a fraction of the deaths in the conflict . Needless to say, QEII is the head of the armed forces and commander in chief, so how can one have a relaxed attitude to the Queen when HER forces have not only caused many deaths in Northern Ireland during the conflict but also since many centuries ago. What are your views on this?

Not officially, but the split is almost as much a Protestant/Roman Catholic one as anything. Republicanism in Ireland has always been strongly linked with Roman Catholicism.

My intention was neither racist nor sectarian. I was looking for nothing deeper than an expression of my deep dislike for a man who has no moral right to be walking the streets a free man.

As for your other point, McGuinness has been proven to have been involved in the decision-making processes of an organisation whose primary military aims have included the deliberate and pre-meditated murder of civilians. The Queen is the ceremonial (ie non-decision-making) head of armed forces whose primary military aim has been to defend civilian citizens and at no stage to target them. Big difference.



It has been linked but purely on cultural and historic grounds. The Troubles were never a religious conflict. They were always about ownership of Ulster. They were never about belief (or otherwise) in God or methods of worship or anything relating to that.

Then if you took exception to McGuinness you would then also express your deep dislike for Nelson Mandela, who was CO FOUNDER and leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe which was the armed wing of the ANC. Their "primarily military activity" did not include killing civilians and how would it, their primary aim was to remove British occupation from Ireland this included the British Army and Loyalist paramilitaries

"The Queen is the ceremonial (ie non-decision-making) head of armed forces whose primary military aim has been to defend civilian citizens and at no stage to target them"

Then how do you explain Bloody Sunday? The Ballymurphy massacre? in which civilians were targeted and murdered

I explain Bloody Sunday as the British Army screwing up. They got it wrong. Are you saying the Queen had some part in choosing to target those civilians?

Someone was responsible, and to the the public eye even though she may not be directly involved in matters, she is the figurehead and public representative. Both sides have done horrific things, I can admit. Yet Ireland is only one example which has suffered at the hands of the British Empire

And now, thankfully, the British Empire is leading the way in bringing peace to Ulster, something with which Sinn Fein is self-evidently not comfortable but which they are, nonetheless, playing their part in achieving.

Well first off the Empire is nowhere the strength as it once was. All parties in NI played a significant role in the Good Friday agreement and Sinn Fein are determined for peace unlike the dissidents. In reference to Ulster a third of the counties of Ulster are in the South where as 6 remain occupied.

First of all - no racist or sectarian views should be projected on this thread

This is huge as it is the first a republican has ever shaken hands with a monarch. Despite the views of him being a thug, criminal or hypocrite,this is completely dependent on one's perspective of historical events. He is branded with these labels as criminal and terrorist because he had possibly been responsible for a fraction of the deaths in the conflict . Needless to say, QEII is the head of the armed forces and commander in chief, so how can one have a relaxed attitude to the Queen when HER forces have not only caused many deaths in Northern Ireland during the conflict but also since many centuries ago. What are your views on this?

Need I say the majority of founding fathers of the United Irishmen a republican group in 18th century were protestant nationalists? Wolfe Tone, Henry Joy McCracken, Thomas Russell, Theodore, LORD Edward Fitzegerald, William Orr and I can go on forever. It is only in the past 100 years through the establishment of the UVF and other Loyalist paramilitaries did a "split" become visible. Of course it had been strongly linked to Catholicism but it was not exclusively Catholic.

He is a Pathetic Traitor!

Many families who are victims of British State murder made their thoughts clear today on what they think of him!

As one said, McGuinness sent men and women out to attack enemy combatants without having the guts to do it himself. He sent men and women to their deaths and now he spits on their grave by meeting the commander and chief of the British armed forces!
Hundreds took to the streets of Belfast to support these families and make their thoughts clear!

..... and the United Irishmen were founded over 200 years ago.

When was this?

It is so hard for the Queen and it is a gesture of forward movement, although many dismiss it as an offhand political agenda. I have so many members affected by the activities of the IRA and evidence points time and time again to mcguiness involvement so it's tough. Both factions have to move forward in order for peace, both have made their mistakes and both need to recognise a shared government is the only way forward and that might mean compromises such as shaking hands.

One of my favourite quotes appears on Garrick pub quite close to the city hall, '
A nation that keeps one eye on the past is wise. A nation that keeps two eyes on the past is blind. '
I think we are still leaning too much into the latter.

Ronnie Bunting and founding member of the IRSM in 1974 was a protestant? Religion doesn't and never did have anything to do with the struggle.

yes it does, it'd be like saying aparthied wasn't racially based because some white southafricans opposed it. The segregation of northern irish children into religious schools was a large part of keeping the place an embarrassing backward looking ****hole of sectarian poison.

Today, in the centre of Belfast.

It is not about, keeping eyes on the past. It is about Victims of the British State fighting for justice. I seen Mothers, Sisters, fathers, Brothers of people Murdered by the British state as well as people who were shot by the British state stand up and call for justice today. Crimes committed by the RUC, British Army, UDR, and British controlled Loyalist Death squads. These people have no justice and they and their relatives are criminalised!
And every one of them condemned MMG's actions! They will no and do not accept the Commander and Chief of the British Armed forces visiting Ireland!

yes it does, it'd be like saying aparthied wasn't racially based because some white southafricans opposed it. The segregation of northern irish children into religious schools was a large part of keeping the place an embarrassing backward looking ****hole of sectarian poison.

So what would you say would count as justice for these victims? Revenge? Criminal prosecutions? Financial compensation? What exactly would satisfy them and you?

And how would that justice differ from the justice that you think should be provided for the "Mothers, Sisters, fathers, Brothers of people Murdered by the" Republicans as part of the Troubles? Should there be any difference? If so, why?

How do your answers to these questions promote peace?

MMcG will not be meeting the Queen as a murderer or as a terrorist or as a leader of an illegal paramilitary organisation; he will be meeting her as a peace-seeking representative of the people. Similarly the Queen will not be there in any military capacity, she will be there as head of a state that is seeking peace. What does your attitude to her do to promote peace?



The opponents in the Troubles split down largely religious lines but that does not mean that they were fighting about religion. They weren't. They were fighting about ownership of Northern Ireland.

If they'd been fighting about religion, MMcG would have been demanding something like an eternal ceremonial seat in Parliament for Mary, Mother of God while Ian Paisley would have demanded something equally stupid like the outlawing of all bibles that mentioned Mary's name. There was never anything like that because they weren't fighting over religion, they were fighting over N. Ireland.