Death of Brian Keenan

[J70]

Whenever a republican dies or is discussed on this site, no account of his or her terrorist actions or their motivations is ever given credence - its always hearsay or the words of someone with no credibility or with ulterior motives. You'd almost swear sometimes that the IRA committed no terrorist acts at all or that the twisted bastards who murdered those ten Protestant workers or the likes of Patsy Gillespie were rogue elements who didn't represent republicanism. Sure, the likes of Martin McGuinness and Brian Keenan were important men in the IRA, but no one can ever prove that they have blood on their hands seems to be the logic, at least to me anyway.

[magickingdom]

Whenever a republican dies or is discussed on this site, no account of his or her terrorist actions or their motivations is ever given credence - its always hearsay or the words of someone with no credibility or with ulterior motives. You'd almost swear sometimes that the IRA committed no terrorist acts at all or that the twisted bastards who murdered those ten Protestant workers or the likes of Patsy Gillespie were rogue elements who didn't represent republicanism. Sure, the likes of Martin McGuinness and Brian Keenan were important men in the IRA, but no one can ever prove that they have blood on their hands seems to be the logic, at least to me anyway.

these arguments go on forever j70 and you want to know why? because there are two sides to every story. would you say the same about his fathers RAF career? i'm sure he dropped a few bombs in his day too..

[orangeman]

IT takes a hell of a lot more time to end a war than it does to begin one OM.

It depends on who is trying to stop it and why they want it stopped, does it not Zapasita ??

[J70]

Whenever a republican dies or is discussed on this site, no account of his or her terrorist actions or their motivations is ever given credence - its always hearsay or the words of someone with no credibility or with ulterior motives. You'd almost swear sometimes that the IRA committed no terrorist acts at all or that the twisted bastards who murdered those ten Protestant workers or the likes of Patsy Gillespie were rogue elements who didn't represent republicanism. Sure, the likes of Martin McGuinness and Brian Keenan were important men in the IRA, but no one can ever prove that they have blood on their hands seems to be the logic, at least to me anyway.

these arguments go on forever j70 and you want to know why? because there are two sides to every story. would you say the same about his fathers RAF career? i'm sure he dropped a few bombs in his day too..

You think lads who fought in the likes of WW2 on the orders of their governments are morally equivalent to paramilitaries?

[Main Street]

Whenever a republican dies or is discussed on this site, no account of his or her terrorist actions or their motivations is ever given credence - its always hearsay or the words of someone with no credibility or with ulterior motives. You'd almost swear sometimes that the IRA committed no terrorist acts at all or that the twisted bastards who murdered those ten Protestant workers or the likes of Patsy Gillespie were rogue elements who didn't represent republicanism. Sure, the likes of Martin McGuinness and Brian Keenan were important men in the IRA, but no one can ever prove that they have blood on their hands seems to be the logic, at least to me anyway.

The sentiments of that post are oft repeated by British Army/UDR /Loyalist ideologues like CC O Brien
When a poster here or anywhere wants to have a pop against a republican and uses a quote from O'Callaghan to prove the connection with Keenan to a mass murder then belief and credibility are to the fore.
I don't have any doubt Keenan was a republican in a position of command and involved in the IRA along with a few thousand others.

[magickingdom]

Whenever a republican dies or is discussed on this site, no account of his or her terrorist actions or their motivations is ever given credence - its always hearsay or the words of someone with no credibility or with ulterior motives. You'd almost swear sometimes that the IRA committed no terrorist acts at all or that the twisted bastards who murdered those ten Protestant workers or the likes of Patsy Gillespie were rogue elements who didn't represent republicanism. Sure, the likes of Martin McGuinness and Brian Keenan were important men in the IRA, but no one can ever prove that they have blood on their hands seems to be the logic, at least to me anyway.

these arguments go on forever j70 and you want to know why? because there are two sides to every story. would you say the same about his fathers RAF career? i'm sure he dropped a few bombs in his day too..

You think lads who fought in the likes of WW2 on the orders of their governments are morally equivalent to paramilitaries?

in the 'lads' do you also include the germans?

[J70]

Whenever a republican dies or is discussed on this site, no account of his or her terrorist actions or their motivations is ever given credence - its always hearsay or the words of someone with no credibility or with ulterior motives. You'd almost swear sometimes that the IRA committed no terrorist acts at all or that the twisted bastards who murdered those ten Protestant workers or the likes of Patsy Gillespie were rogue elements who didn't represent republicanism. Sure, the likes of Martin McGuinness and Brian Keenan were important men in the IRA, but no one can ever prove that they have blood on their hands seems to be the logic, at least to me anyway.

these arguments go on forever j70 and you want to know why? because there are two sides to every story. would you say the same about his fathers RAF career? i'm sure he dropped a few bombs in his day too..

You think lads who fought in the likes of WW2 on the orders of their governments are morally equivalent to paramilitaries?

in the 'lads' do you also include the germans?

Whenever a republican dies or is discussed on this site, no account of his or her terrorist actions or their motivations is ever given credence - its always hearsay or the words of someone with no credibility or with ulterior motives. You'd almost swear sometimes that the IRA committed no terrorist acts at all or that the twisted bastards who murdered those ten Protestant workers or the likes of Patsy Gillespie were rogue elements who didn't represent republicanism. Sure, the likes of Martin McGuinness and Brian Keenan were important men in the IRA, but no one can ever prove that they have blood on their hands seems to be the logic, at least to me anyway.

these arguments go on forever j70 and you want to know why? because there are two sides to every story. would you say the same about his fathers RAF career? i'm sure he dropped a few bombs in his day too..

You think lads who fought in the likes of WW2 on the orders of their governments are morally equivalent to paramilitaries?

in the 'lads' do you also include the germans?

Interesting (and tricky!) question, and one that I would think much smarter people than myself have grappled with. Yes, I guess I would have to include the average German soldier, but there probably comes a point where "following orders" becomes a thin excuse.

[J70]

Whenever a republican dies or is discussed on this site, no account of his or her terrorist actions or their motivations is ever given credence - its always hearsay or the words of someone with no credibility or with ulterior motives. You'd almost swear sometimes that the IRA committed no terrorist acts at all or that the twisted bastards who murdered those ten Protestant workers or the likes of Patsy Gillespie were rogue elements who didn't represent republicanism. Sure, the likes of Martin McGuinness and Brian Keenan were important men in the IRA, but no one can ever prove that they have blood on their hands seems to be the logic, at least to me anyway.

The sentiments of that post are oft repeated by British Army/UDR /Loyalist ideologues like CC O Brien
When a poster here or anywhere wants to have a pop against a republican and uses a quote from O'Callaghan to prove the connection with Keenan to a mass murder then belief and credibility are to the fore.
I don't have any doubt Keenan was a republican in a position of command and involved in the IRA along with a few thousand others.

I really don't give a shit what CC O'Brien or the Brits or Loyalists say.

I am completely in favour of skepticism in any situation, but when it comes to the IRA on this board, the really dirty stuff always seem to the acts of someone else - no matter what the source, there is always an agenda. That's just how its appeared to me, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Main Street]

I really don't give a shit what CC O'Brien or the Brits or Loyalists say

.
Who cares what what you give a shit about, fact is, they are the people/groups who espouse exactly that type skepticism in this context.

"I am completely in favour of skepticism in any situation"

That's a strange belief system.
I am more in favour of rational analysis myself.

[J70]

I really don't give a shit what CC O'Brien or the Brits or Loyalists say

.
Who cares what what you give a shit about, fact is, they are the people/groups who espouse exactly that type skepticism in this context.

"I am completely in favour of skepticism in any situation"

That's a strange belief system.
I am more in favour of rational analysis myself.

And all this time I considered skepticism to go hand-in-hand with rational analysis. Thanks for clearing that up. (I mentioned skepticism in reference to questioning sources such as the O'Callaghan one BTW)

As to CC O'Brien and the loyalists/Brits, if my observation about the reluctance of some on this board to acknowledge that people on their side committed some horrible, bigoted, unjustifiable acts reflects utterances of their's at some point, why don't you address the point itself instead of trying to discredit through association.

[Main Street]

And all this time I considered skepticism to go hand-in-hand with rational analysis. Thanks for clearing that up. (I mentioned skepticism in reference to questioning sources such as the O'Callaghan one BTW)

You wrote something different, you wrote
"I am completely in favour of skepticism in any situation"

I understand 'any situation' to mean just about any situation, not one particular incident.

As to CC O'Brien and the loyalists/Brits, if my observation about the reluctance of some on this board to acknowledge that people on their side committed some horrible, bigoted, unjustifiable acts reflects utterances of their's at some point, why don't you address the point itself instead of trying to discredit through association.

You appear to be very sensitive about your almost identical association with the scepticism of Loyalists, Brits, UDR, CC O'Brien in this matter.
You discredit Brian Keenan by association because as sure as fxck, O'Callagan quote is no proof.
A teeny weeny bit of my rationality tells me that it is appropriate to pour large doses of scepticism on anything he utters. and an even larger dose of scepticism on anybody who uses an O'Callaghan quote a proof

[J70]

And all this time I considered skepticism to go hand-in-hand with rational analysis. Thanks for clearing that up. (I mentioned skepticism in reference to questioning sources such as the O'Callaghan one BTW)

You wrote something different, you wrote
"I am completely in favour of skepticism in any situation"

I understand 'any situation' to mean just about any situation, not one particular incident.

Which was the opening to a sentence in which I said that some take skepticism to the degree that they'll never accept any account that is critical of their position, such as the life of a leading republican in this case. I was responding to your casting doubt on O'Callaghan, which may well be the correct interpretation.

As to CC O'Brien and the loyalists/Brits, if my observation about the reluctance of some on this board to acknowledge that people on their side committed some horrible, bigoted, unjustifiable acts reflects utterances of their's at some point, why don't you address the point itself instead of trying to discredit through association.

You appear to be very sensitive about your almost identical association with the scepticism of Loyalists, Brits, UDR, CC O'Brien in this matter.
You discredit Brian Keenan by association because as sure as fxck, O'Callagan quote is no proof.
A teeny weeny bit of my rationality tells me that it is appropriate to pour large doses of scepticism on anything he utters. and an even larger dose of scepticism on anybody who uses an O'Callaghan quote a proof

I didn't say anything about Keenan beyond the general point I made about this board in relation to what I've observed in these types of discussions over the years I've been a member.

And again, I don't care if an opinion I express is shared by someone like CC O'Brien or loyalists, as long as the fact that the opinion is shared is not the only thing used to argue against it.

[Main Street]

I didn't say anything about Keenan beyond the general point I made about this board in relation to what I've observed in these types of discussions over the years I've been a member. And again, I don't care if an opinion I express is shared by someone like CC O'Brien or loyalists, as long as the fact that the opinion is shared is not the only thing used to argue against it.

I don't know about past discussions. We are in the present and you are directly replying to the O'Callaghan spoof about Keenan.
Personally I am only talking about that. I have no reference points to previous discussions.

Re Keenan or anybody else, rationality demands proof, if there is no proof then it's propaganda.
Propaganda is a component of war.
Any person would have to suspend rationality to pay any serious attention to O'Callaghan.
Keenan, it would appear, was in a command position in the IRA
The IRA did anything from A to Z.
He has to take his share of responsibility and also he has his reasons for and his Republican ideology.

The usual position of British Army establishment ideologues is to associate everybody in the Republican movement with the worst atrocities and in the total absence of proof.
That's not rationality, that's propoganda.
If that's your position then fine, then you share the same stage as those ideologues.

I take a another position and it is not a position of being right or being wrong.

[J70]

I didn't say anything about Keenan beyond the general point I made about this board in relation to what I've observed in these types of discussions over the years I've been a member. And again, I don't care if an opinion I express is shared by someone like CC O'Brien or loyalists, as long as the fact that the opinion is shared is not the only thing used to argue against it.

I don't know about past discussions. We are in the present and you are directly replying to the O'Callaghan spoof about Keenan.
Personally I am only talking about that. I have no reference points to previous discussions.

Re Keenan or anybody else, rationality demands proof, if there is no proof then it's propaganda.
Propaganda is a component of war.
Any person would have to suspend rationality to pay any serious attention to O'Callaghan.
Keenan, it would appear, was in a command position in the IRA
The IRA did anything from A to Z.
He has to take his share of responsibility and also he has his reasons for and his Republican ideology.

The usual position of British Army establishment ideologues is to associate everybody in the Republican movement with the worst atrocities and in the total absence of proof.
That's not rationality, that's propoganda.
If that's your position then fine, then you share the same stage as those ideologues.

I take a another position and it is not a position of being right or being wrong.

Well I have not espoused that position anywhere. What I have said was that, from where I stand, the position of some on this board is that no particular person could be associated with the worst atrocities i.e. any evidence suggesting such was always propaganda.

I tend to avoid these threads anyway because, like many from outside the six counties I would suspect, you get tired of each side blaming the other and taking little responsibility for their own community's contribution to what happened in Northern Ireland.

[Zapatista]

Well I have not espoused that position anywhere. What I have said was that, from where I stand, the position of some on this board is that no particular person could be associated with the worst atrocities i.e. any evidence suggesting such was always propaganda.

I tend to avoid these threads anyway because, like many from outside the six counties I would suspect, you get tired of each side blaming the other and taking little responsibility for their own community's contribution to what happened in Northern Ireland.

That is quite a generalisation. I fear of dragging the thread to a new low so I will be short. The 26 counties played their part as did the Brits and for you to limit it to "each side" is very disheartening.

I agree that there are some who Will never have a bad word said about Republicans even though they did some terrible things. The reverse is true too that for some no matter what the IRA or an IRA volunteer do they will always be the one who murdered Innocent people and will always be bad.