gaaboard.com

Leading IRA figure Brian Keenan has died

Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The leading Belfast republican and IRA leader, Brian Keenan, has died after a long illness.

Mr. Keenan was a pivotal figure in the Republican movement during the Northern Troubles.

Tony Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, described him in his recent autobiography as "the greatest single threat to the British state".

An apprentice electrical engineer, he joined the IRA in 1968.

He spent 25 years on the run and 16 years in jails across England.

Sinn F€in President Gerry Adams has described Brian Keenan as having been crucial in securing IRA support for the peace process.

RIP...

Que the debait  :-\

Quote from: Donagh on May 21, 2008, 09:04:22 AM


Sinn F€in President Gerry Adams

Why do you spell Sinn Fein with a Euro sign Donagh?

I'd say he tried to put in a fada

Quote from: Bacon on May 21, 2008, 10:46:26 AM

Why do you spell Sinn Fein with a Euro sign Donagh?

Copied that from a Belfast Tele (now owned by Independent Media Group) report this morning Bacon.

No matter about ones personal opinions on the man there's no doubting he was a sincere and dedicated republican, socialist and patriot. There's also no doubt that Adams wouldn't have been able to carry the movement as far as he did without the support of Keenan. While Bertie and Blair have been happy to hog the headlines and take the plaudits of the 'success' of the peace process it was men like Brian Keenan who staked most on making peace and ultimately had most to lose.

Keenan was also a great orator of whom I had the pleasure of listening to a few times. During a debate in the run-up to the SF policing Ard Fheis last year I watched him singlehandly turn a room of sceptics around to supporting the leadership motion. No matter what whispers were going around about the motivations of the politicos, there was no doubting sincerity and logic of the visibly frail Keenan, who had given most of his life to the movement, arguing for progress.

It was also very informative to hear him argue against a Dublin motion that wanted the insertion of the word 'socialist' before the word 'republican' in some side motion or other. His argument went along the lines of him being so confident in his understanding of republicanism and socialism that the two go hand in hand. Irish republicanism to him was socialist and as such there was no need to continually restate this. The Dublin motion was defeated.

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam

Quote from: Donagh on May 21, 2008, 11:12:55 AM

Quote from: Bacon on May 21, 2008, 10:46:26 AM

Why do you spell Sinn Fein with a Euro sign Donagh?

Copied that from a Belfast Tele (now owned by Independent Media Group) report this morning Bacon.

No matter about ones personal opinions on the man there's no doubting he was a sincere and dedicated republican, socialist and patriot. There's also no doubt that Adams wouldn't have been able to carry the movement as far as he did without the support of Keenan. While Bertie and Blair have been happy to hog the headlines and take the plaudits of the 'success' of the peace process it was men like Brian Keenan who staked most on making peace and ultimately had most to lose.

Keenan was also a great orator of whom I had the pleasure of listening to a few times. During a debate in the run-up to the SF policing Ard Fheis last year I watched him singlehandly turn a room of sceptics around to supporting the leadership motion. No matter what whispers were going around about the motivations of the politicos, there was no doubting sincerity and logic of the visibly frail Keenan, who had given most of his life to the movement, arguing for progress.

It was also very informative to hear him argue against a Dublin motion that wanted the insertion of the word 'socialist' before the word 'republican' in some side motion or other. His argument went along the lines of him being so confident in his understanding of republicanism and socialism that the two go hand in hand. Irish republicanism to him was socialist and as such there was no need to continually restate this. The Dublin motion was defeated.

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam

I wonder what he thought as he looked back over the years - where there was a enemy who he and others tried to get out of the country by force and then seeing Deputy First Minister Martin Mc Guinness, visit an injured policeman in Castlederg last week ?? He must have had to scratch his head quite a few times as past few years as all the changes unfolded.

RIP

Donagh, were you ever in his company?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 21, 2008, 01:09:36 PM
Donagh, were you ever in his company?

Was introduced to him at a wake in Lurgan a few years back.

A true Gentleman and a quiet hero. My prayers are with his family and friends. May this man of peace now rest in peace.

Quote from: orangeman on May 21, 2008, 11:57:47 AM

I wonder what he thought as he looked back over the years - where there was a enemy who he and others tried to get out of the country by force and then seeing Deputy First Minister Martin Mc Guinness, visit an injured policeman in Castlederg last week ?? He must have had to scratch his head quite a few times as past few years as all the changes unfolded.

RIP

I doubt it OM as he had more vision than most.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 21, 2008, 01:40:23 PM

Quote from: orangeman on May 21, 2008, 11:57:47 AM

I wonder what he thought as he looked back over the years - where there was a enemy who he and others tried to get out of the country by force and then seeing Deputy First Minister Martin Mc Guinness, visit an injured policeman in Castlederg last week ?? He must have had to scratch his head quite a few times as past few years as all the changes unfolded.

RIP

I doubt it OM as he had more vision than most.

What was his vision for the future ?

Keenan interview (Part 1)
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/26762

(Part 2)
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/26946

(Part 3)
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/27259

Quote from: orangeman on May 21, 2008, 04:34:44 PM

What was his vision for the future ?

When I say he had great vision I mean he knew what the consequences of his actions and the action of others would be. More a vision of the future rahter than for the future.

These little qoutes say much about his view and it can in some way give a sence of achievement to his politics.

"Most republicans see it in terms of British troops occupying the North. I see it in those terms as well but I also apply a socialist analysis."

"Over the years I met a lot of republicans from the '40s. I don't want to be cruel to them because they were good people. They kept the struggle going in difficult times. But they relied too much on the politics of the gun.
"Their vision was a united Ireland, plain and simple. It didn't matter on whose terms as along as it was a united Ireland."

Keenan spent the past couple of years mostly in Cullyhanna Co. Aramgh as his health deteriorated.
Very influential character who, i imagine played a very pivotal role behind the scenes in recent years!!

Quote from: Zapatista on May 21, 2008, 06:37:33 PM

Quote from: orangeman on May 21, 2008, 04:34:44 PM

What was his vision for the future ?

When I say he had great vision I mean he knew what the consequences of his actions and the action of others would be. More a vision of the future rahter than for the future.

These little qoutes say much about his view and it can in some way give a sence of achievement to his politics.

"Most republicans see it in terms of British troops occupying the North. I see it in those terms as well but I also apply a socialist analysis."

"Over the years I met a lot of republicans from the '40s. I don't want to be cruel to them because they were good people. They kept the struggle going in difficult times. But they relied too much on the politics of the gun.
"Their vision was a united Ireland, plain and simple. It didn't matter on whose terms as along as it was a united Ireland."

What advice would be offer the new or any future republican freedom fighters ?

"Revolutionaries have to be pragmatic – wish lists are for Christmas."

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 02:43:36 PM
"Revolutionaries have to be pragmatic – wish lists are for Christmas."

Why was this maxim not employed years ago ? It would have saved a lot of grief. Obviously his vision of / for the future came after the realisation that the war couldn't have been won militarily ??

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 02:50:28 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 02:43:36 PM
"Revolutionaries have to be pragmatic – wish lists are for Christmas."

Why was this maxim not employed years ago ? It would have saved a lot of grief. Obviously his vision of / for the future came after the realisation that the war couldn't have been won militarily ??

It was employed years ago. I'd say nearly 20 years ago now.

You know better than that OM. If you think we are on the same playing field now as we where in the late 60s and 70s when we had a "Prodestant State for a Prodestant people" I am never going to win a discussion with you. If you can look at the political situation then and compare it to now and see the remarkable difference I see we can discuss this futher.

"Peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of Justice."  I can't remember who said that.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 04:01:07 PM

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 02:50:28 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 02:43:36 PM
"Revolutionaries have to be pragmatic – wish lists are for Christmas."

Why was this maxim not employed years ago ? It would have saved a lot of grief. Obviously his vision of / for the future came after the realisation that the war couldn't have been won militarily ??

It was employed years ago. I'd say nearly 20 years ago now.

You know better than that OM. If you think we are on the same playing field now as we where in the late 60s and 70s when we had a "Prodestant State for a Prodestant people" I am never going to win a discussion with you. If you can look at the political situation then and compare it to now and see the remarkable difference I see we can discuss this futher.

"Peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of Justice."  I can't remember who said that.

So it was a fight for justice all along and nothing else ?

I am convinced for Brian Keenan it was.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 05:26:05 PM
I am convinced for Brian Keenan it was.

Do you think that the call for Irish freedom that went out to the mass Irish nationalist population, propgated by the Provos and others was really only to seek justice for the Nationalist catholic population of the 6 counties ? Do you really think that in order to achieve justice that it requried 30+ years of pain to be inflicted upon the Nationalist Irish, the Unionist Irish and the British ?

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 05:30:41 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 05:26:05 PM
I am convinced for Brian Keenan it was.

Do you really think that in order to achieve justice that it requried 30+ years of pain to be inflicted upon the Nationalist Irish, the Unionist Irish and the British ?

The "Sixty Four Dollar Question".

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 05:30:41 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 05:26:05 PM
I am convinced for Brian Keenan it was.

Do you think that the call for Irish freedom that went out to the mass Irish nationalist population, propgated by the Provos and others was really only to seek justice for the Nationalist catholic population of the 6 counties ? Do you really think that in order to achieve justice that it requried 30+ years of pain to be inflicted upon the Nationalist Irish, the Unionist Irish and the British ?

Its a fair point.... If we're honest every side is as bad as each other

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 05:30:41 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 05:26:05 PM
I am convinced for Brian Keenan it was.

Do you think that the call for Irish freedom that went out to the mass Irish nationalist population, propgated by the Provos and others was really only to seek justice for the Nationalist catholic population of the 6 counties ? Do you really think that in order to achieve justice that it requried 30+ years of pain to be inflicted upon the Nationalist Irish, the Unionist Irish and the British ?

I think this thread should be about the death of Brian Keenan. I will give you my answers by PM or on another thread if you wish to start one on any of the questions you have.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 06:10:54 PM
I think this thread should be about the death of Brian Keenan. 

I see, a thread where certain posters are allowed to describe him as "A true gentleman", "a quiet hero", "a man of peace" or a "visionary" etc, and others aren't allowed to question them?  ::)

No Evil Genius OM was questioning me and a quote I inserted which did not belong to Brian Keenan. OM can describe him how he likes but he is trying to question me on my politlics and not that of Brian Keenan. This is fair enough and I will answer the questions but I am entilted to try to keep the thread on topic.

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 05:30:41 PM


Do you think that the call for Irish freedom that went out to the mass Irish nationalist population, propgated by the Provos and others was really only to seek justice for the Nationalist catholic population of the 6 counties ? Do you really think that in order to achieve justice that it requried 30+ years of pain to be inflicted upon the Nationalist Irish, the Unionist Irish and the British ?

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 06:28:48 PM
No Evil Genius OM was questioning me and a quote I inserted which did not belong to Brian Keenan. OM can describe him how he likes but he is trying to question me on my politlics and not that of Brian Keenan. This is fair enough and I will answer the questions but I am entilted to try to keep the thread on topic.

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 05:30:41 PM


Do you think that the call for Irish freedom that went out to the mass Irish nationalist population, propgated by the Provos and others was really only to seek justice for the Nationalist catholic population of the 6 counties ? Do you really think that in order to achieve justice that it requried 30+ years of pain to be inflicted upon the Nationalist Irish, the Unionist Irish and the British ?

OK, then, assuming that Keenan felt that the GFA was eventually a "just" settlement - he endorsed it after all -  may we assume that he also believed that it was worth the "30+ years of pain...   ...inflicted upon the Nationalist Irish, the Unionist Irish and the British" by the Provisional movement which he led?

i see in todays times it was an incident in 1960something when big ian led a march demanding a tricolour hanging in w belfast be taken down was what first got brian keenan intereested in politics. bet ian wishes he forgot about that tricolour

That Flag stunt thing had Paisley a made man as top bigot, so he has nothing to regret over that.

http://typhooshaunt.blogspot.com/2008/03/paisley-and-tricolour-riots-of-1964.html (http://typhooshaunt.blogspot.com/2008/03/paisley-and-tricolour-riots-of-1964.html)

September 27 1964 when the Free Presbyterian cleric issued an 'SOS to all Ulster Protestants' to meet in the Ulster Hall.He told the rally: "If that flag is not removed tomorrow I will organise a march and remove it myself."The effect of Paisley's threat was instantaneous

Within hours a party of 50 RUC members under District Inspector Frank Lagan broke down the door of the Sinn Fein office and seized the flag. Meanwhile, a crowd of several thousand gathered in Divis Street to await Paisley and clashed with police.The next night saw fierce rioting in the district in which buses were set alight and the RUC made several baton charges. A fresh tricolour appeared in the republican HQ on October 1 and this time the RUC broke into the prem-ises with pick axes to remove it.That night Belfast had its worst riots since 1935.

There is a tendency among contributors to this discussion to equate Republicanism in Ireland with Socialism. I have raised this point before and would now like to re-state the question, how valid is this equation. Many of the original founders of Sinn-Fein such as Arthur Griffiths, Kevin O Higgins, Bulmer Hobson and the O Rahilly could hardly be described as socialists. Indeed in Ecomic and Social outlook many of todays republicans would be more akin to FF than any socialist party. No Socialist Party has ever flourished in any part of Ireland, including the major connurbations. Are we then to conclude that the majority of our population are not republican. Are Brian Cowan or Enda Kenny not republican. A serious debate requires a serious definition of what constitutes repulicanism. Over to you

Quote from: Pangurban on May 22, 2008, 09:19:56 PM
There is a tendency among contributors to this discussion to equate Republicanism in Ireland with Socialism. I have raised this point before and would now like to re-state the question, how valid is this equation. Many of the original founders of Sinn-Fein such as Arthur Griffiths, Kevin O Higgins, Bulmer Hobson and the O Rahilly could hardly be described as socialists. Indeed in Ecomic and Social outlook many of todays republicans would be more akin to FF than any socialist party. No Socialist Party has ever flourished in any part of Ireland, including the major connurbations. Are we then to conclude that the majority of our population are not republican. Are Brian Cowan or Enda Kenny not republican. A serious debate requires a serious definition of what constitutes repulicanism. Over to you

bertie was the last socialist and he's gone..  ;)
but of course you dont have to be a socialist to be a republican

Quote from: Pangurban on May 22, 2008, 09:19:56 PM
There is a tendency among contributors to this discussion to equate Republicanism in Ireland with Socialism. I have raised this point before and would now like to re-state the question, how valid is this equation. Many of the original founders of Sinn-Fein such as Arthur Griffiths, Kevin O Higgins, Bulmer Hobson and the O Rahilly could hardly be described as socialists. Indeed in Ecomic and Social outlook many of todays republicans would be more akin to FF than any socialist party. No Socialist Party has ever flourished in any part of Ireland, including the major connurbations. Are we then to conclude that the majority of our population are not republican. Are Brian Cowan or Enda Kenny not republican. A serious debate requires a serious definition of what constitutes repulicanism. Over to you

In light of what Zapasita was saying earlier that Brian Keenan had a vision of / for the future which it seems was justice for the nationalist people of the 6 counties, is it now time to reexamine what a republican is ?

Did it not mean someone who wanted an AI state in a republic made up of the 32 counties ?

Does it now mean that the goal has been achieved, i.e perceived justice for the nationalists ?

Can the term republican be done away with now ?

Quote from: Pangurban on May 22, 2008, 09:19:56 PM
There is a tendency among contributors to this discussion to equate Republicanism in Ireland with Socialism. I have raised this point before and would now like to re-state the question, how valid is this equation. Many of the original founders of Sinn-Fein such as Arthur Griffiths, Kevin O Higgins, Bulmer Hobson and the O Rahilly could hardly be described as socialists. Indeed in Ecomic and Social outlook many of todays republicans would be more akin to FF than any socialist party. No Socialist Party has ever flourished in any part of Ireland, including the major connurbations. Are we then to conclude that the majority of our population are not republican. Are Brian Cowan or Enda Kenny not republican. A serious debate requires a serious definition of what constitutes repulicanism. Over to you

Pangurban few if any you mention could even be described as republican. SF when it was founded was not a republican Party, however if you want to look for the socialist roots of Irish republicanism you need look at the influence of the United Irishmen, the Young Irelanders and the Land League.

Most devout 'republicans' do not seek a republic, as mixed up as that sounds, in terms of its political connotations. Communism is not far from the ideals of some high-ranking repulican officials, much to the chagrin of our religious leaders!

I am afraid i must respectfully but profoundly disagree with you Donagh, while at the same time noting that you did not rise to the challenge of providing a definition of republicanism. While there undoubtedly were people such as Tone, Lalor, Davitt who could be described as socialist, within the three movements you referred to, there were also others such as Drennan, Davis and Parnell who by no stetch of the imagination could be described as socialists.  However  i would contend that this did not render them  any less republican. You are quite correct in stating that at its foundation Sinn-Fein was not a republican party. Nor was it a socialist party. Its ironic that the only party whose roots are truly republican and socialist, are the Irish Labour Party, despite their later going to the bad. Apart from a few brief periods eg. the period of the so called republican congress , Sinn Fein has never espoused socialism other than rhetorically when the occasion demanded. Indeed you will have to search hard to find any vestige of socialism within todays Sinn Fein, other than an occasional bout of the aforementioned rhetoric. Should SF be even described as a political party. I dont think so. As a broad umbrella movement for people who aspire to the creation of a 32 County sovereign independent Republic it has a function, But if such a Republic should ever be attained, then the people as the sovereign masters  must choose between the competing social and economic ideologies. In such a scenario as we witnessed in the past, natural realignments occur and umbrella groups disintegrate. I still await your definition

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 10:33:19 PM

In light of what Zapasita was saying earlier that Brian Keenan had a vision of / for the future which it seems was justice for the nationalist people of the 6 counties, is it now time to reexamine what a republican is ?

Not only for the nationalist (I am not a nationalist) people of the six counties but for all the people of the six counties. As far as I am concerned Republicanism does exactly what it says on the tin. There is no need to reexamine what a republican is but there is a need to reexamine those who falsely claim to be republican.

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 10:33:19 PM
Did it not mean someone who wanted an AI state in a republic made up of the 32 counties ?

It is widely accepted to mean that but that is not all it means. Not only should a Republican want this but if you believe in Republicanism you should promote it all over the world from Derry to Dubai. Or else it's just Nationalism.

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 10:33:19 PM
Does it now mean that the goal has been achieved, i.e perceived justice for the nationalists ?

If that was your goal then Yes. If your goal was to achieve a Republic and a social state then No. I don't believe it was ever about Nationalism V Unionism and Brian Keenan did not believe it either. This was not a tribal war but a war against an unequal society being forceably upheld by an occupying army. It was and is/should be about the end of discrimination and sectarianism manufactured by the ruling class in order to remain the ruling class. I believe that sectarianism is now coming to an end but now the working class people of the six counties are equally being discriminated against regardless of religion and so the battle continues.

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 10:33:19 PM
Can the term republican be done away with now ?

Why would you do away with the term? The term republican does not belong to SF or any Irish party. Or anyone for that matter.

Pangurban, I'm very busy at work at the moment so I don't have the time to give your post the consideration it deserves but in brief now I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I don't mean to suggest that Irish republicanism as an ideology is 'socialist' but rather as you acknowledge many of its proponents would have had radical left wing leanings and influences. For many of us, including northern republicans, the socialist debate was effectively hedged when Connolly threw his lot in with the bourgeois nationalists in the belief that national self-determination must be achieved first before progress on social issues. That the national issue became the overriding concern for republicans and socialists is not to suggest that individuals that subscribe to any or both beliefs have abandoned socialist principles or leanings.
 
As for the modern SF Party. I know of many dedicated socialists within that Party, Eoin Ó Broin is one that springs to mind and one that I have a lot of respect for. I also know of many more within that Party who would be no more socialist than Authur Griffith, so in that respect you could say that the northern wing of it probably still resembles the broad church of beliefs that was there in 1916 but that the ideological debates are still hedged until national self-determination is achieved. How the GFA and SF's participation in the northern Administration will affect and play on those differences within that Party is anyones guess.

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 10:33:19 PM

In light of what Zapasita was saying earlier that Brian Keenan had a vision of / for the future which it seems was justice for the nationalist people of the 6 counties, is it now time to reexamine what a republican is ?

Not only for the nationalist (I am not a nationalist) people of the six counties but for all the people of the six counties. As far as I am concerned Republicanism does exactly what it says on the tin. There is no need to reexamine what a republican is but there is a need to reexamine those who falsely claim to be republican.


Good point Zapasita - can you elaborate on this point ?

Also what are the essential differences between a nationalist and a republican in your opinion ?

Quote from: orangeman on May 23, 2008, 10:43:52 AM
there is a need to reexamine those who falsely claim to be republican.


Good point Zapasita - can you elaborate on this point ?

Also what are the essential differences between a nationalist and a republican in your opinion ?

Sure. There are many people in all the partys in Ireland who claim to be Republican. They are only Republican of convenience. As the 26 countys is a Republic it is convenient to be a republican. It is less convenient if you where to live in a Monarchy while it would be easy to be a monarchist. I don't think anyone could argue that Republicanism is a necessity of democracy. If you are a Republican you should be promoting it across the world. e.g. FF say they are 'the republican party' which is fine as they are a party in a republic. However, FF do nothing to promote this type of Government in other places. If FF where true Republicans they would try to encourage stormount to employ republican politics. If their true brand of politics is republican then they would be expected to at least wish that on all Irish people but instead it does not factor in anything they do. It is akin to the Green party not promoting Green issues outside the 26 counties. The idea of the Green party is to expand on Green politics as the idea of a Republican party should be to expand republican politics.

There are many too (in particular SF) who are Nationalists who think they are republicans.Their idea is they would like a United Ireland and thats where it ends. There are many reasons for this. They have romantic ideas of an Irish nation with a tricolour and an anthem and standing proudly among other nations. Notions of a small place like Ireland taking on the might of the British and winning freedom. The idea that if you take away the Union Jack and fly the tricolour you have won self determination. There is nothing Republican about any of this unless you replace the Union Jack with a Republic. Republicanism is not nationalism. In the case of Ireland Irish Nationalism is used to promote Republicanism over British Monarchism. The two have gone hand in hand for so long they have almost merged together but the truth is they are very different.

I am not a Nationalist. I have no regard for the tricolour or the Anthem or Patriotism. I am neither proud nor ashamed to be Irish. I am a Republican. I believe in the peoples right to a republic. I do not believe any is born unto a higher command than another. I oppose Monarchism and promote Republicanism. I would be happy enough to live as a British citizen in a British Republic and I would and will promote republicanism starting in Ireland.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 22, 2008, 07:13:17 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on May 22, 2008, 06:28:48 PM
No Evil Genius OM was questioning me and a quote I inserted which did not belong to Brian Keenan. OM can describe him how he likes but he is trying to question me on my politlics and not that of Brian Keenan. This is fair enough and I will answer the questions but I am entilted to try to keep the thread on topic.

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2008, 05:30:41 PM


Do you think that the call for Irish freedom that went out to the mass Irish nationalist population, propgated by the Provos and others was really only to seek justice for the Nationalist catholic population of the 6 counties ? Do you really think that in order to achieve justice that it requried 30+ years of pain to be inflicted upon the Nationalist Irish, the Unionist Irish and the British ?

OK, then, assuming that Keenan felt that the GFA was eventually a "just" settlement - he endorsed it after all -  may we assume that he also believed that it was worth the "30+ years of pain...   ...inflicted upon the Nationalist Irish, the Unionist Irish and the British" by the Provisional movement which he led?

Assume what you want EG. I however would assume he didn't see it as a final solution as I said before I believe he had great vision. I assume he also felt like (although he played his part) he was not responsible for your cherrypicked dicription of the last 30 years. I would also assume he had a very different view of the last 30 years than you have. 

Quote from: Zapatista on May 23, 2008, 11:43:37 AM

Quote from: orangeman on May 23, 2008, 10:43:52 AM
there is a need to reexamine those who falsely claim to be republican.


Good point Zapasita - can you elaborate on this point ?

Also what are the essential differences between a nationalist and a republican in your opinion ?

Sure. There are many people in all the partys in Ireland who claim to be Republican. They are only Republican of convenience. As the 26 countys is a Republic it is convenient to be a republican. It is less convenient if you where to live in a Monarchy while it would be easy to be a monarchist. I don't think anyone could argue that Republicanism is a necessity of democracy. If you are a Republican you should be promoting it across the world. e.g. FF say they are 'the republican party' which is fine as they are a party in a republic. However, FF do nothing to promote this type of Government in other places. If FF where true Republicans they would try to encourage stormount to employ republican politics. If their true brand of politics is republican then they would be expected to at least wish that on all Irish people but instead it does not factor in anything they do. It is akin to the Green party not promoting Green issues outside the 26 counties. The idea of the Green party is to expand on Green politics as the idea of a Republican party should be to expand republican politics.

There are many too (in particular SF) who are Nationalists who think they are republicans.Their idea is they would like a United Ireland and thats where it ends. There are many reasons for this. They have romantic ideas of an Irish nation with a tricolour and an anthem and standing proudly among other nations. Notions of a small place like Ireland taking on the might of the British and winning freedom. The idea that if you take away the Union Jack and fly the tricolour you have won self determination. There is nothing Republican about any of this unless you replace the Union Jack with a Republic. Republicanism is not nationalism. In the case of Ireland Irish Nationalism is used to promote Republicanism over British Monarchism. The two have gone hand in hand for so long they have almost merged together but the truth is they are very different.

I am not a Nationalist. I have no regard for the tricolour or the Anthem or Patriotism. I am neither proud nor ashamed to be Irish. I am a Republican. I believe in the peoples right to a republic. I do not believe any is born unto a higher command than another. I oppose Monarchism and promote Republicanism. I would be happy enough to live as a British citizen in a British Republic and I would and will promote republicanism starting in Ireland.

Why does Sinn Fein call themselves a Republican party now ? Should they not be called a nationalist party ?

If what they stood for, which I'm surprised to learn now, was a quest for justice for the catholic people of the 6 counties, and now that that goal has been achieved, is it now a case of remaining in politics simply to ensure that that hard fought and bloody struggle to achieve justice is maintained ??
Was this Brian Keenan and now Sinn Fein's vision of / for the future ?

Quote from: orangeman on May 23, 2008, 01:10:01 PM


Why does Sinn Fein call themselves a Republican party now ? Should they not be called a nationalist party ?

If what they stood for, which I'm surprised to learn now, was a quest for justice for the catholic people of the 6 counties, and now that that goal has been achieved, is it now a case of remaining in politics simply to ensure that that hard fought and bloody struggle to achieve justice is maintained ??
Was this Brian Keenan and now Sinn Fein's vision of / for the future ?

I should have pointed out that not all SFers are simpley Nationalist. Eoin O'Brion (who Donagh mentioned earlier) is one example of the SF membership and leadership that are very republican and honest socialists. I have answered your with my opinion on the other two points already.

If you think maintaining justice is something simple then I give up.

If you want to have a pop at SF then have a pop at them and if you want to have a pop at me then go ahead. Please don't ask me simple questions about something so complicated.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 23, 2008, 01:30:35 PM

Quote from: orangeman on May 23, 2008, 01:10:01 PM


Why does Sinn Fein call themselves a Republican party now ? Should they not be called a nationalist party ?

If what they stood for, which I'm surprised to learn now, was a quest for justice for the catholic people of the 6 counties, and now that that goal has been achieved, is it now a case of remaining in politics simply to ensure that that hard fought and bloody struggle to achieve justice is maintained ??
Was this Brian Keenan and now Sinn Fein's vision of / for the future ?

I should have pointed out that not all SFers are simpley Nationalist. Eoin O'Brion (who Donagh mentioned earlier) is one example of the SF membership and leadership that are very republican and honest socialists. I have answered your with my opinion on the other two points already.

If you think maintaining justice is something simple then I give up.

If you want to have a pop at SF then have a pop at them and if you want to have a pop at me then go ahead. Please don't ask me simple questions about something so complicated.

I'm not having a pop at anyone least of all yourself !

But I simply don't accept that Brian Keenan / Sinn Fein leadership's vision of / for the future merely ( and I'm not underestimating the achievement ) consists of stayping in power to maintain justice for their constituents.

Brian Ó Cianáin, ar dheis De go raibh a anam dilis

An alternative view of this "Man of Peace":
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3985132.ece

Of course, I hardly expect unanimous endorsement on this forum of such obviously Brit propaganda such as the Times of London, never mind someone like Sean O'Callaghan, who has clearly never, ever uttered a word of truth in his life (even in his sleep); nonetheless, I found this particular entry instructive:  

"He may have seen himself as a working-class revolutionary, but he was simultaneously a sectarian bigot. "Keenan believed that the only way, in his words, to put the nonsense out of the Prods was to just hit back much harder and more savagely than them," recalls the IRA informer Sean O'Callaghan. It was Keenan who recommended to Seamus Twomey, then the Provisionals' "chief of staff", that the UVF's random anti-Catholic assassinations should be met with reciprocal acts. The result was the IRA's attack in Kingsmill, South Armagh, in January 1976, in which ten Protestants were murdered in a machinegun attack"

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 04:50:13 PM
An alternative view of this "Man of Peace":

How very predicatable  ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 04:50:13 PM
An alternative view of this "Man of Peace":
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3985132.ece

Of course, I hardly expect unanimous endorsement on this forum of such obviously Brit propaganda such as the Times of London, never mind someone like Sean O'Callaghan, who has clearly never, ever uttered a word of truth in his life (even in his sleep); nonetheless, I found this particular entry instructive:  

"He may have seen himself as a working-class revolutionary, but he was simultaneously a sectarian bigot. "Keenan believed that the only way, in his words, to put the nonsense out of the Prods was to just hit back much harder and more savagely than them," recalls the IRA informer Sean O'Callaghan. It was Keenan who recommended to Seamus Twomey, then the Provisionals' "chief of staff", that the UVF's random anti-Catholic assassinations should be met with reciprocal acts. The result was the IRA's attack in Kingsmill, South Armagh, in January 1976, in which ten Protestants were murdered in a machinegun attack"

That is a cheap shot EG.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 04:50:13 PM
An alternative view of this "Man of Peace":
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3985132.ece

Of course, I hardly expect unanimous endorsement on this forum of such obviously Brit propaganda such as the Times of London, never mind someone like Sean O'Callaghan, who has clearly never, ever uttered a word of truth in his life (even in his sleep); nonetheless, I found this particular entry instructive:  

"He may have seen himself as a working-class revolutionary, but he was simultaneously a sectarian bigot. "Keenan believed that the only way, in his words, to put the nonsense out of the Prods was to just hit back much harder and more savagely than them," recalls the IRA informer Sean O'Callaghan. It was Keenan who recommended to Seamus Twomey, then the Provisionals' "chief of staff", that the UVF's random anti-Catholic assassinations should be met with reciprocal acts. The result was the IRA's attack in Kingsmill, South Armagh, in January 1976, in which ten Protestants were murdered in a machinegun attack"

Firstly I wouldn't lend much credence to O'Callaghan's thoughts.  I read his autobiography and many of his articles and his convoluted explanations of his (self-acknowledged) lies doesn't stack up for me.

As for Keenan I would have thought that his involvement with the Balcombe Street gang would have lowered his estimation in the eyes of the on-line republicans here?

Especially given their propensity for striking at purely civilian targets.

/Jim.

Did anything honestly think EG's "alternative" view wasnt coming all along?

As I said, very predictable!

Quote from: his holiness nb on May 23, 2008, 05:22:53 PM
Did anything honestly think EG's "alternative" view wasnt coming all along?

As I said, very predictable!

Mathematically I would say that it was about the same predictability as a Nationalist poster having an "alternative" view of a loyalist terrorist.

But there you go.

/Jim.

Quote from: his holiness nb on May 23, 2008, 05:22:53 PM
Did anything honestly think EG's "alternative" view wasnt coming all along?

As I said, very predictable!

And did you ever think to comment on the predictability* of Republicans like e.g. Donagh or Zapatista praising Keenan?

I am an Irishman who lost close friends, neighbours, schoolmates etc to the activities of people like Keenan, so for all that I gladly acknowledge his eventual endorsement of  the "Peace Process" etc, I personally find it disgusting that other people cannot take a more circumspect view of him and the terrible things he also did over the course of 3 decades. So if my reaction is a "predictable" one, that hardly makes it any less valid than that of other posters.

And as it happens, although I have not personally experienced the brunt of the atrocities carried out by Keenan's "Loyalist" [sic] counterparts, I have absolutely no hesitation in condemning them and their murderous activities in equally forthright terms. Do you find that "predictable", too, or do you somehow just ignore it, since it doesn't seem to conform to your clearly prejudiced view of me and people like me?


* - Come to think about it, just about the most predictable thing on this entire forum is that when I post a substantive comment on any given thread, you will immediately jump to have a pop at me, whilst totally ignoring the point I am trying to make. Or do you have any opinion on the life and death of Brian Keenan?  ::)

Quote from: Zapatista on May 23, 2008, 05:11:50 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 04:50:13 PM
An alternative view of this "Man of Peace":
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3985132.ece

Of course, I hardly expect unanimous endorsement on this forum of such obviously Brit propaganda such as the Times of London, never mind someone like Sean O'Callaghan, who has clearly never, ever uttered a word of truth in his life (even in his sleep); nonetheless, I found this particular entry instructive:  

"He may have seen himself as a working-class revolutionary, but he was simultaneously a sectarian bigot. "Keenan believed that the only way, in his words, to put the nonsense out of the Prods was to just hit back much harder and more savagely than them," recalls the IRA informer Sean O'Callaghan. It was Keenan who recommended to Seamus Twomey, then the Provisionals' "chief of staff", that the UVF's random anti-Catholic assassinations should be met with reciprocal acts. The result was the IRA's attack in Kingsmill, South Armagh, in January 1976, in which ten Protestants were murdered in a machinegun attack"

That is a cheap shot EG.

What is "cheap", in appraising the life of one of the most notable public figures in recent Irish history, to point out that this avowed "Socialist" looks to have ordered people to flag down a minibus of ordinary men coming home from their place of work, send the only catholic on his way, then pump 160 shots into the 10 remaining Protestants whom they'd lined up by the side of the road?

And even if you don't believe O'Callaghan's testimony that Keenan was responsible for that particular atrocity amongst many others, no-one can reasonably deny that he was personally responsible, inter alia, for directing the activities of the Balcombe Street Gang's terror campaign in England in the 1970's.  :o

For those too young to remember, this particular campaign in the War of Liberation included activities such as murdering civilians by setting off no-warning bombs packed with bolts and ball-bearings etc in public restuarants and hotels etc, then going back days later, after the carnage had been cleared up and they had reopened, to rake the premises with gunfire. Of course, these were often posh restaurants, so this was clearly justified by sound Socialist principles... >:(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/315216.stm

He seems an interesting man, at the forefront of our modern history.

I hope he had time to write down his story before he died

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 05:59:14 PM
And did you ever think to comment on the predictability* of Republicans like e.g. Donagh or Zapatista praising Keenan?

Of course it predicatable praising a guy who has just died having given most of his life to the republican cause, coming from a republican on a GAA website.

Theres lots of predictable and obvious statements on here.

But not all are predictable in that they are deliberately made to stir tensions.

Or was your post part of "one small step" ?  ::)

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 05:59:14 PM
So if my reaction is a "predictable" one, that hardly makes it any less valid than that of other posters.

Correct, while I said your post was predictable, I never said it was less valid than that of other posters. So stop acting the victim again.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 05:59:14 PM
And as it happens, although I have not personally experienced the brunt of the atrocities carried out by Keenan's "Loyalist" [sic] counterparts, I have absolutely no hesitation in condemning them and their murderous activities in equally forthright terms. Do you find that "predictable", too,

Certainly less predictable that the intial post, whilst not uncommon either.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 05:59:14 PM
or do you somehow just ignore it, since it doesn't seem to conform to your clearly prejudiced view of me and people like me?

When you say I have a prejudiced view of "people like me" do you mean unionists, loyalists or shit stirrers?

I'd certainly have a prejudiced view of shit stirrers, while I seem to get on fine with decent unionists like Chrisown and Nifan who conduct themselves like decent human beings.
Also, given that my opinion of you is formed purely from your comments on here, you might want to check up on the meaning of "prejudiced" before you go accusing people of it.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 05:59:14 PM
* - Come to think about it, just about the most predictable thing on this entire forum is that when I post a substantive comment on any given thread, you will immediately jump to have a pop at me, whilst totally ignoring the point I am trying to make. Or do you have any opinion on the life and death of Brian Keenan?  ::)

I strongly disagree, your doing the exact thing you accuse me of above, but to Tony Fearon, is much more predictable  ;)

Now away you go and predictably accuse me of licking tonys arse or being gay or something predictably pathetic.  ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 06:26:03 PM

What is "cheap", in appraising the life of one of the most notable public figures in recent Irish history, to point out that this avowed "Socialist" looks to have ordered people to flag down a minibus of ordinary men coming home from their place of work, send the only catholic on his way, then pump 160 shots into the 10 remaining Protestants whom they'd lined up by the side of the road?

He looks to have nothing EG. A quote from O'Callaghan is a credible as a quote from China about Tibet. There is nothing credible in what you say above in relation to Brian Keenan. I will  join you in saying that particular attack was shameful murder.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 06:26:03 PM
And even if you don't believe O'Callaghan's testimony that Keenan was responsible for that particular atrocity amongst many others, no-one can reasonably deny that he was personally responsible, inter alia, for directing the activities of the Balcombe Street Gang's terror campaign in England in the 1970's.  :o


For those too young to remember, this particular campaign in the War of Liberation included activities such as murdering civilians by setting off no-warning bombs packed with bolts and ball-bearings etc in public restuarants and hotels etc, then going back days later, after the carnage had been cleared up and they had reopened, to rake the premises with gunfire. Of course, these were often posh restaurants, so this was clearly justified by sound Socialist principles... >:(

I remember that differently EG. I will not get into this now as I know I can't fully explain my view of it in text on this forum.

I will say though that your arguement is full of spin. You quote unreliable sourses and cherrypick 3 to 4 minor facts and falsehoods to give your story impact. You are also asking extremely broad questions and looking for narrow answers. Before you quoted O'Callaghan you discredited him and you then base your arguement on him. These are cheap shots. I will not be dragged into a debate you as you have no interest in debate but are only interested in using this thread to attack Brian Keenan and the IRA.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 06:26:03 PM

And did you ever think to comment on the predictability* of Republicans like e.g. Donagh or Zapatista praising Keenan?

There are many people who claim to be Republican that I will not give praise to. I am not here towing any party line or posting dogmatic comments. Not that Donagh is.

Overall, Brian Keenan's death means very little.

The damage/good has already been done, he agreed with the political steps being taken at various times and indeed, the man, (from all media accounts,) almost single-handedly managed the peace process.  Don't get me wrong, I greatly value the contribution he has made to life in the 6 counties as it is today :)

Without him, things wouldn't have moved so quickly and he really does deserve major kudos for that alone.  I will not include any comment to God as he didn't believe.

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 06:26:03 PM
this avowed "Socialist" looks to have ordered people to flag down a minibus of ordinary men coming home from their place of work, send the only catholic on his way, then pump 160 shots into the 10 remaining Protestants whom they'd lined up by the side of the road?

Of course that awful event didnt just happen in isolation did it?
More of the Unionist selective memory thingy. ::)

Man of peace i suspect thats stretching credibility a little far he may have played a rule in pushing the Ira down the road of peace but why did it take so long for him to do that almost a generation of violence has warped N Ireland caused by people who thought it was right and proper to kill and maim for their cause and everyside is included in that so i wont pass him any sympathy then neither would i pass on any sympathy to Ian Paisley when he meets his maker.

Mr Adams added: "He believed in the primacy of politics. And he understood the need to build Sinn Fein as the vehicle of republican struggle.

I don't really understand what Gerry Adams means by this. Since when did he believe in the primacy of politics - in the beginning or near the end ?

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

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.

Quote from: J70 on May 24, 2008, 04:32:27 PM
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..

Quote from: Zapatista on May 24, 2008, 04:14:19 PM
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 ??

Quote from: magickingdom on May 24, 2008, 07:47:39 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 24, 2008, 04:32:27 PM
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?

Quote from: J70 on May 24, 2008, 04:32:27 PM
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.

Quote from: J70 on May 25, 2008, 06:30:46 AM

Quote from: magickingdom on May 24, 2008, 07:47:39 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 24, 2008, 04:32:27 PM
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?

Quote from: magickingdom on May 25, 2008, 02:54:53 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 25, 2008, 06:30:46 AM

Quote from: magickingdom on May 24, 2008, 07:47:39 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 24, 2008, 04:32:27 PM
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?

Quote from: magickingdom on May 25, 2008, 02:54:53 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 25, 2008, 06:30:46 AM

Quote from: magickingdom on May 24, 2008, 07:47:39 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 24, 2008, 04:32:27 PM
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.

Quote from: Main Street on May 25, 2008, 02:18:24 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 24, 2008, 04:32:27 PM
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.

Quote from: J70 on May 25, 2008, 04:44:47 PM
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.

Quote from: Main Street on May 25, 2008, 08:12:19 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 25, 2008, 04:44:47 PM
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.

Quote from: J70 on May 25, 2008, 08:43:23 PM
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.

QuoteAs 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 :)

Quote from: Main Street on May 25, 2008, 09:26:25 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 25, 2008, 08:43:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Main Street on May 25, 2008, 09:26:25 PM

QuoteAs 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.

Quote from: J70 on May 25, 2008, 10:03:29 PM
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.

Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2008, 12:30:55 AM

Quote from: J70 on May 25, 2008, 10:03:29 PM
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.

Quote from: J70 on May 26, 2008, 12:47:39 AM

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.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 26, 2008, 07:48:12 AM

Quote from: J70 on May 26, 2008, 12:47:39 AM

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.

I was talking about the GAA board members. I don't think we have too many Brits. But yes, maybe I was generalizing a bit too much, so that should read "some on each side".

Quote from: J70 on May 26, 2008, 03:09:16 PM
I was talking about the GAA board members. I don't think we have too many Brits. But yes, maybe I was generalizing a bit too much, so that should read "some on each side".

You've a lot of talk there about these'uns and them'uns J70, so perhaps it's time you told us exactly who it is you are talking about and where all of these threads are? Personally I don't think I have even seen a thread on here concerning the IRA members where your concerns have not been raised though I note you are happy to skip over atrocities committed by certain other sides during long conflicts.

Quote from: Donagh on May 26, 2008, 03:28:29 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 26, 2008, 03:09:16 PM
I was talking about the GAA board members. I don't think we have too many Brits. But yes, maybe I was generalizing a bit too much, so that should read "some on each side".

You've a lot of talk there about these'uns and them'uns J70, so perhaps it's time you told us exactly who it is you are talking about and where all of these threads are? Personally I don't think I have even seen a thread on here concerning the IRA members where your concerns have not been raised though I note you are happy to skip over atrocities committed by certain other sides during long conflicts.

You mustn't look at too many of those threads then so if you think I contribute to them to any serious degree, at least more recently.

And if you really want to go down the road of digging out old threads, then please outline these atrocities that I have apparently skipped over. I think it is a given that the vast majority, if not all of the people on this board, at least from the nationalist side, abhorr the loyalist/British atrocities.

We all have our impressions of other board members, particularly those of longer standing. I have got involved in threads on the north in the past, and I have questioned the bias towards the republican interpretation of events that seems, to me, to exist on this board (which is understandable, given the membership profile), and some members have expressed their disagreement/disgust with my contributions. Beyond that, I have little to contribute to these discussions, so I stay out of them. If my impressions are mistaken, then feel free to correct me.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 23, 2008, 05:15:45 PM

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 23, 2008, 04:50:13 PM
An alternative view of this "Man of Peace":
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3985132.ece

Of course, I hardly expect unanimous endorsement on this forum of such obviously Brit propaganda such as the Times of London, never mind someone like Sean O'Callaghan, who has clearly never, ever uttered a word of truth in his life (even in his sleep); nonetheless, I found this particular entry instructive:  

"He may have seen himself as a working-class revolutionary, but he was simultaneously a sectarian bigot. "Keenan believed that the only way, in his words, to put the nonsense out of the Prods was to just hit back much harder and more savagely than them," recalls the IRA informer Sean O'Callaghan. It was Keenan who recommended to Seamus Twomey, then the Provisionals' "chief of staff", that the UVF's random anti-Catholic assassinations should be met with reciprocal acts. The result was the IRA's attack in Kingsmill, South Armagh, in January 1976, in which ten Protestants were murdered in a machinegun attack"

Firstly I wouldn't lend much credence to O'Callaghan's thoughts.  I read his autobiography and many of his articles and his convoluted explanations of his (self-acknowledged) lies doesn't stack up for me.

As for Keenan I would have thought that his involvement with the Balcombe Street gang would have lowered his estimation in the eyes of the on-line republicans here?

Especially given their propensity for striking at purely civilian targets.

/Jim.

Indeed. One is left to wonder, were they acting on 'nationalist' impluses (murdering those people because of their nationality, ie because they were British) or 'socialist/republican' ones (murdering them because of their perceived class, i.e. because they were for example eating in an upmarket restuarant).

Personally, I see no difference in tactics from the 7/7 and 21/7 bombers, other than that the Islamist terrorists were to take their own lives too...

Quote from: Main Street on May 25, 2008, 02:18:24 PM

Quote from: J70 on May 24, 2008, 04:32:27 PM
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'm pretty sure Ed Moloney referred to Keenan approving the Kingsmills massacre in his 'Secret History of the IRA'. I don't of course know how accurate this is.

Quote from: Main Street on May 26, 2008, 12:30:55 AM
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.

The leadership and rank and file of the the republican movement's political side did a pretty good job of publicly associating itself with the atrocities of the Balcombe Street gang, within fairly recent memory, did it not? :-\

Think Gerry called them "our Mandelas" or something.  Dont know an awful lot about the Balcombe gang but I watched an RTE documentary on them before and they seemed very ruthless and deliberately targeted civilians quite regularly.

Quote from: Zapatista on May 23, 2008, 11:43:37 AMI am not a Nationalist. I have no regard for the tricolour or the Anthem or Patriotism. I am neither proud nor ashamed to be Irish. I am a Republican. I believe in the peoples right to a republic.

Surely that's far too simplistic? I'd rather live in Denmark, for example, under its political system than a lot of republics out there.

Parliamentary republics where the head of state is a figurehead would, I would argue, for example, have much more in common with other parliamentary democracies with a figurehead head of state who is a monarch than with presidential republics.

Quote from: MW on May 27, 2008, 10:46:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Ed Moloney referred to Keenan approving the Kingsmills massacre in his 'Secret History of the IRA'. I don't of course know how accurate this is.

But was he using O'Callaghan as a source ;)

There are afaik only 2 sources propagating Keenans involvement.
1. O'Callaghan
2. A Daily Telegraph journalist who said Keenan knew something, book Bandit Country or something.

Either it was approved by him or it wasn't part of his radar at all.

Quote from: MW on May 27, 2008, 10:57:54 PM

Quote from: Zapatista on May 23, 2008, 11:43:37 AMI am not a Nationalist. I have no regard for the tricolour or the Anthem or Patriotism. I am neither proud nor ashamed to be Irish. I am a Republican. I believe in the peoples right to a republic.

Surely that's far too simplistic? I'd rather live in Denmark, for example, under its political system than a lot of republics out there.

Parliamentary republics where the head of state is a figurehead would, I would argue, for example, have much more in common with other parliamentary democracies with a figurehead head of state who is a monarch than with presidential republics.

It's very simple that I am not a Nationalist. I would rather live in England or Norway than in the Republic of China. Which country you would rather live in has nothing to do with being a Republican. Your belief in the political system of Republicanism makes you a Republican. If I am on the Moon I can still be a Republican who would rather be in Saudi Arabia than on the moon.


Your comparison is limited to the West and excludes the fundamental differences between a President and a Monarch and instead compares elected Parliments which is a different argument.

Did Brian Keenan believe that Sinn Fein and or the IRA had achieved all its political objectives in delivering equality to the nationalist / republican people ?