The UK has been guilty of dreadful things but that doesn't make McGuiness or his organisation any less odious.
Just as small example, let's consider what we think about an organisation who would place a bomb in a litter bin, bearing in mind it was Saturday when there would be mainly families around, also bearing in mind that it was outside McDonalds on the the day before Mothers day, the day when the number of children around would be pretty high.

I'm not saying McGuiness did that personally but he was part of the group that did.
Odious is pretty mild actually.

Agreed.
Unpalateable though it is to accept it, it's necessary to move on.

He might have softened over the years though.

Indeed....'Before the Dawn'.

If only the bog trotters had some nice new shiny, precision targeted tomohawk missiles. With a good PR machine they could even have avoided all this guff about innocent civillians and just talked aboput collateral damage.

Thank God England is so civilised.

Who was the target of the Omagh bomb?

Of course not, but it was regularly claimed McGuiness fired the first shorts that day.

I'd say the revulsion of the two British soldiers being drove away in a black taxi, stripped, beaten, then shot in the head, whilst a helicopter cameraman filmed the majority of it was enough for most people.... It had to end!

I appreciate that changing the focus of the debate to fit your hobby horses is your modus operandi, but even by your standards that's a stretch. I can only assume you have sympathy with the causes and methods McGuinness and his like espouse?

See, I can put words in your mouth much as you can put words in mine.

Causes?

Yes. Just as I would imagine any democrat and progressive would.

Methods?

No.

No more than I have any sympathy for the methods of, say, the British military in blowing the heads off Iraqi children or raping Kenyan women. Or, for that matter, shooting dead a bunch of civilians on Bloody Sunday because someone had a panic.

But to look at some of the earlier contributions on this thread – not yours alone, but certainly yours included – one could be forgiven for imagining that only one side was culpable in the 800-odd years of the 'Irish problem'.

Having said that, let's check, shall we?



Yup. Only one side mentioned. And with your comment about "terrorist sympathiser", the implication the entire issue about what constitutes 'terrorism'.

Now I really don't do 'sins of the fathers' and all that stuff, whether it's in a religious sense or in a sense of grovelling about history. But that does not mean that the history is not there – or that, as in this case, that only one side shoulder historic blame or guilt for atrocities.