To feel sorry for the Queen having to shake hands with that utter toerag Mcguinness?

[Callisto]

Former terrorist, responsible for killing goodness knows how many innocents, not to mention British troops and Lord Mountbatten (who the Queen was alledgedly very close to). McGuinness is a really nasty piece of work (who should be left to rot in prison for the rest of his days) and while I can see that we need to forgive and forget, it seems to go far above and beyond what we should expect the Queen to do.

In South Africa, black people didn't have a vote. In Northern Ireland, they did,"

But thanks to the tactic of Gerrymandering it was ensured that they didn't count

ASilly, Have you ever watched Mo?

Amazing woman. :)

Yes, she was great.

mumsneedwine - very sad to hear you have to live with such a horrible experience - i hope you can take some comfort from the fact that you are a million times more decent than the unapologetic killer(s) of your friend - because you are working hard to improve childrens' lives.

My Grandad - a career soldier from a violent slum background - felt guilty all his life for killing enemy soldiers in self-defence during battles in WW2 - even though he knew that he would have been killed himself if he hadn't fought back.

So how on earth can any person who has committed deliberate murder of innocent civillians not be totally consumed by guilt?? How do they sleep at night??!! Most normal people would try to atone for their crimes surely??

That includes (allegedly of course) Martin McGuiness & anyone else who committed crimes such as murder against civillians in this world, using war or ideology as an excuse.

You are keeping the memory of your friend alive & that is important - sadly there may never be an apology from his killer, some people just don't have human emotions it seems.

All those talking about "knowing your history" seem to be a bit selective with theirs.

The IRA were not the only voices of the Nationalist community, there were also the SDLP who pioneered the Sunningdale power-sharing agreement back in 1973 - the one that looks remarkably like today's power sharing arrangements, except the IRA rejected it and the DUP scuppered it.

Yet they both seem to like power-sharing now, when it's them who have the power!

Let's be clear, the IRA's campaign of violence is one that they would never win, because the majority of Northern Ireland then, like now, wanted to remain part of the UK.
For those who are saying "Oh but they had to use violence to be listened to" again, see Sunningdale, and secondly, note that the very same disgusting argument is used by loyalist terrorists, who claim that their increased murder rate in the '90's had "the IRA running to the peace table".

Back to the IRA. In the early 80's they started to realise that they would ultimately get nowhere and made overtures to the British government discussing how they "could bring things to a close" (See excellent documentary Ireland's Endgame for more on this).

Not that such discussions stopped them killing people of course. Also, looking at the Sutton Index of Deaths here cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/index.html and for those who like graphs here: www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html#statusperpetrator , it is clear that the people who killed the most Catholics were...

The IRA.

Not one single, solitary person needed to, or should have died in the Troubles (that's what they are referred to as, so that's what they should be called) and no amount of whataboutery should be used to obscure that.

P.S I forget which poster referred to kneecapping, but another thing overlooked in the "freedom fighter rhetoric" is that both Republican and Loyalist terrorists used to make an absolute fortune bleeding their communities dry for protection money and other criminal schemes - in fact they even used to negotiate with each other to sort out who had which area between them.

About 3000 people were killed in 'the troubles' many more were injured / wounded - if a handshake stops more deaths then who wouldn't shake hands.

"Not a single solitary person need have died in the troubles"

No, if only they the UK hadn't kept a portion of their colonised territories, their wouldn't have been any troubles at all. Or maybe there would have been a whole other set of troubles. It's so easy to pick one point and hang on it, isn't it? Easier than trying to understand the whole problem, just blame the IRA. Nice and neat.

Well said PVanL

Some people's view of NI history is simplistic in the extreme.

Northern Irish history didn?t begin with the start of the Troubles. Sorry if this is irritating and inconvenient but to understand the true situation your knowledge needs to extend far beyond who did what to whom in the last 40 years.

I would love to know what my Dad would think of that, born in Northern Ireland, he would be 91 years old. He was born just as they divided the North from the South, grew up there and had to come to England to get work. The seventies were awful I remember. There were many arguments in our house as my Mom was Engish and protestant. Happy days!

I think it utterly abysmal that because of her role she was expected (regardless of whether she was willing or not) to shake hands with that "toerag" considering what happened to Lord Mountbatten.

Any other person who lost a family member because of terrorism would not have been expected to shake hands with a member of the terrorist group who caused their family members tragic death.

I really don't care for the christian argument of forgiveness, some people are guilty of unforgivable acts.

Earl Mountbatten's daughter said of the meeting "I think it's wonderful. I'm hugely grateful that we have come to a point where we can behave responsibly and positively."

I think the Queen looked like she coped just fine. With all due respect to her and her own personal experiences she is the head of state and this part of her job. What's important is the future of Northern Ireland.

I think the statements are just as professional as the hand shake.

Like I said earlier, its not the first time shes shaken hands with killers, she was happy to decorate the soldiers who shot unarmed teenagers, wasn't she? Or is a Lords life worth so much more than a poor catholic kids?

She dines with dictators and dances with despots, I very much little old McGuinness bothers her much.

She's used to much worse.

She had lunch with the King of Bahrain.

Do you seriously think shaking hands with Martin McGuinness caused her a moment's upset?

In all honesty unless she is blissfuly unaware of what acts people she has so socialise with are guilty of then yes I would believe it would cause her a moments upset.

Would you be able to shake hands with a man who was involved in a terrorist group responsible for the death of one of your family members without a dash of emotion?

I don't agree with her dining with all the sickos she has to, but the difference between this nasty "toerag" and all the other "toerags" that she has shaken hands with is that this "toerag" is personal. ie. I think all terrorists and dictators are vile cunts but I would probably have far more hatred for a cunt responsible for the death of one of my loved ones.

She's there as a state representative, personal shouldn't come into it. And really justifying it being worse because all the people killed by people she eats with and smiles with are not known to her, or further away, or a different religion or colour...its pathetic.

I wish they hadn't reported it on the news tbh.

But isn't the whole point of the news that it, I don't know, report news stories?

Or is it only for the 'nice' stories?

Like massacres in Syria.

FioFio, it is news....why would there not be a report on it

I did hear that Prince Phil moved swiftly in the other direction when McGuinness approached.

The Queen was following instructions as Head of State, and behaved very professionally. They have to be seen to set an example of moving forwards. Loving how Prince Phillip walked off though...actions speak a thousand words.

YABU...study your Irish history.

penisvanlesbian

It seems very much like unless I agree with you you're going to continue with the or resorting to calling what I say "pathetic".

I disagree with you. Regardless of whether she is a state representative or not she is a human so personal does come into it. I object to certain things within my industry on a personal basis and anyone in any job has the right to object to things on a personal basis.

I didn't justify it as "worse" because the people are not known to her... I said it effects her on a personal basis. Regardless of whether you like what I have said or deem it pathetic, surely you understand it would difficult to shake hands with a man who shares responsibility of the death of a loved one? Would you happily shake the hands of somebody who shares responsibility for the murder of one of your loved ones?