Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Martin McGuiness

Dying at the age of 66yrs of age from heart disease, should he be remembered as a hero or a villain..?

He was a teenage terrorist that was directly responsible for many deaths of innocent people, young or old, and indiscriminately. And yet he went on to forge the ceasefire and ultimately peace in Northern Ireland.

I am really finding it hard to reconcile some of the facts.

Does the end justify the means?

It might do if he were for example fighting the Chinese commies but he was not. He was organising the murdering of people in a democracy. He didnt have the balls to do his campaigning through the ballot box like Ghandi or even Salmon.

And now he has destabilised the Stormont by demanding of his opponents something he knew they could never give, with the undoubted objective of starting it all off again.

It is always better to change from war to peace than the other way around.

Feel sorry for all those he killed but not him should have gone years ago.

Freedom fighter or terrorist. All depends on your politics/genes, didn't mrs T call mandella a terrorist who we would never deal with. Just putting a other angle on discussion, at end result is what everyone wants ,Peace.

I am finding it impossible to write those three letters ......

Caroline suffered growing up in N Ireland through the 70s.

Her comment: good riddance.

In a word..... No.

As Pickles says, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

To my eyes McGuinness was a ruthless murderer who became part of the peace process, which could never have happened without some of the men of violence getting on board. It turns my stomach some of the things which had to be done to achieve the peace, such as releasing convicted murderers, but it was necessary for the greater good. The only bit I'm struggling with these days is the continuing persecution of service personnel for what went on, while the page has been turned on all the terrorist atrocities.

Like many, I have pretty conflicted feelings. There's no doubt he was an enthusiastic instigator and participant in many terrorist acts that resulted in the deaths of many innocent people.

But he thought he was in the right, fighting a justified war against what he and the IRA saw as British oppression. Does that justify his actions? No, but it helps to aid our understanding of their motivations.

When he saw that the IRA had no chance of winning - the IRA had been thoroughly penetrated by British Intelligence and one of the things that brought them to the negotiating table was when the British revealed just how much they knew about the IRA's membership and activities - he then turned from war to peacemaking, and in his later years made a pretty reasonable job of it.

Does that excuse his earlier activities? Again, probably not.

The history of the British occupation of Ireland has not been a happy affair at any level, and the inevitable long-term outcome has to be a re-united Ireland. It will happen anyway as a result of demographic trends, and I think the biggest threat to peace in the region lies now with 'Loyalists' rather than the Republicans. Not to say this redeems the IRA in any way, they remain a bunch of criminal thugs who have no place in a civilised society.