Sunday, March 8, 2015

Tagged under: ,

Ar Son Saoirse Na hEireann: ‘The Two Brendans’ – Moley And Burns

From the website of the 1916 Societies, a piece on the late IRA volunteers, Brendan Moley and Brendan Burns. It was written by Sean Bresnahan, whose work frequently features on The Pensive Quill.  The author is PRO of the 1916 Societies and Secretary of the Thomas Ashe Society in Omagh,

  • Sean Bresnahan, PRO 1916 Societies and Secretary of the Thomas Ashe Society in Omagh, with a reflection on the lives of Brendan Moley and Brendan Burns that first appeared in the September/October 2014 issue of our magazine. The 29th of February marks the 27th anniversary of their deaths on Active Service – we remember them with pride.
* * *
In South Armagh republican folklore the lives and tragic deaths of two young Irish men will be forever intertwined, with the names of Brendan Moley and Brendan Burns – The Two Brendans as they are popularly remembered – writ large into the story of the struggle for a sovereign and free Ireland. Both were killed on February 29th 1988 on Active Service with the South Armagh Brigade, Oglaigh na hEireann, in preparation for an impending attack on the forces of British occupation. Lifelong friends and comrades, they died for Irish freedom and we in the 1916 Societies salute their courage, pay tribute to their sacrifice and remember them always and with pride. Fuair siad bhas ar son saoirse na hEireann.
 
TwoBrendans
The Two Brendans
 
Brendan Burns is fondly remembered as a determined IRA Volunteer whose commitment to his country was total. Growing up in Cregganduff, not far from the town of Crossmaglen, he joined Oglaigh na hEireann at 16, going on to engage British enemy-forces in a series of daring and well-planned attacks throughout the South Armagh area. By 1984 he was on the run, using his intimate knowledge of the border to evade capture. Arrested by Gardai on foot of an extradition warrant he spent two years in Portlaoise before eventually beating the case. He returned to the armed struggle, seeing his family where and when he could while committing himself full-time to the IRA.
 
Brendan Moley from Dorsey, just outside Cullyhanna, was likewise considered a steadfast Volunteer who would not shirk in the face of adversity. Strong and resilient in his determination to force the British state from Ireland, he played a central role in the many attacks carried out by his local Brigade. Brendan was an experienced Volunteer whose field-craft and soldiery were second-to-none and respected by all who knew him. For men like Brendan Moley the armed struggle offered only reward, be it in an end to British rule in the country he loved or in a martyrs’ death in pursuit of that noble objective.
 
‘The Two Brendans’ fell victim to an accidental explosion when the bomb they were preparing exploded prematurely as they loaded it into a van in border-country near Crossmaglen. Plans to mount an attack on the infrastructure of Britain’s military occupation, of a kind long-seen in South Armagh down through the years, were at an advanced stage but sadly resulted in the tragic passing of these young men, a terrible loss to the fight for freedom.
We’re a special kind of people here, we breed defiance never fear
And we’ll still be here when the tide ‘gainst England turns.
For in our hearts we know we’re right, and never will give up the fight;
We owe that much to Moley and to Burns
Brendan Moley and Brendan Burns – born only weeks apart, growing up only a stone’s throw from the other – were buried on the same day, 3rd March 1988, their funerals bearing witness to a savage display of brutality by state forces in line with a long-standing policy of violently intimidating republican funerals. Riot-clad officers and soldiers attacked the processions, threatening and insulting family members while physically assaulting mourners, all in a futile effort to trample on the dignity of the South Armagh republican community. They did not succeed. Both were laid to rest by their families, friends and comrades as thousands of people from near and far stood in support and solidarity.
 
History will recall their courage in life and in death. The tremendous sacrifice of Brendan Moley and Brendan Burns, a source of inspiration and pride, demands us all to work for a full British withdrawal from Ireland and in turn to reinstate the sovereign republic declared in 1916, for which they gave up their lives. They have lit a path for us to follow, a path to that republic, a path to freedom and peace. Together we will march towards our nation’s destiny, we owe that much to Moley and to Burns.

44 comments :

larry hughes said...

Well written piece Sean. Feel sorry for 'the fools the fools' who died for the Belfast mafia. Even more sorry for the total fuckwits and total chancers who still adore them.

grouch said...

nice one bres, catch u again.

Henry JoY said...

'fuckwits and total chancers' Larry?

That's no way to speak of these gallant and self appointed redeemers of a noble tradition of resistance!

Militant Irish republicanism has always needed passionate rhetorical pieces like that above, otherwise where'd they get a supply of boy soldiers; sixteen year-olds for whom the armed struggle offers 'only reward, be it in an end to British rule in the country or in a martyr's death in pursuit of that noble objective.'

Blah!

larry hughes said...

Henry Joy

Absolutely correct. An uncle who was interned for 2 and a half years and was never convicted of anything before or after his imprisonment was of the opinion the 'people' were laughing up their sleeves at lads going to jail. None more so than McGuinness and Adams sad to say. Gerry sits in front of the McConville kids and apologises about their mum. Standing on the graves of fools is a walk in the park for the fucker....likely ejaculates doing it.

sean bres said...

Glad you's enjoyed the piece lads, I enjoyed writing it at the time. I think it's only right we remember them, it's the least they deserve

Henry JoY said...

Sean some quotes for you to ponder;

"Nothing is as dangerous as an idea ... when its the only one you have."

and

"In short, the anomaly of war is that the best men get themselves killed while crafty men find their chance to govern in a manner contrary to justice."


(Émile Auguste Chartier [March 3, 1868 – June 2, 1951], who wrote under the pseudonym Alain, a notable French essayist, philosopher, journalist, pacifist and teacher).

AM said...

Henry Joy,

the quotes are interesting but why would they be of any more relevance to Sean than yourself or anybody else?

If this becomes trolling and stalking of somebody dignified enough to stand over their views in public by somebody using the shield of anonymity we will put a quick stop to it.

Henry JoY said...

Anthony

agreed the quotes are relevant to us all ... and in the context of differences in political opinions between Sean and I, I'd hold they are relevant there too.

As I see it, the narrow focus that the 1916 Societies presents has little to offer, neither in individual, social or political development contexts.
The first quote elucidates inherent dangers in becoming over attached to a limited repertoire of strategies or ideas. Sean as the author of this piece, and in his contributions on Irish politics and history appears to hold such entrenched positions. Have I not the right to challenge those opinions?

Though I disagree vehemently with the views of the Societies, I uphold their rights of free speech; the right of expression ought afford the right of reply too.

The second quote, I believe reflects the absurdity and futility of advocacy for a failed revolutionary path which the Society perpetuates, albeit in a slightly veiled way. And is also allowable in this context.

If you want to brand me a troll (as Sean has whinged when he doesn't defend his position) and censor my comments then that is your call. Its your gig Anthony and you can cry if you want to!

AM said...

Henry Joy,

The quotes are old hat, useful but well versed and rehearsed.

You won't be censored if you troll; just thrown over to Bates and Wilkes. We don't do censorship here. The first act of censorship is when a writer hides their own identity. You have no standing here whatsoever on the simple principle of invisible people invisible rights.

Sean is no more obligated to defend his position to you than he is to speak to you on the street if you are wearing a mask.

I disagree vehemently with Sean on a range of issues. But I give his this: he has the courage of his convictions and does not avail of anonymity either to make his point or for the disreputable practice of smearing someone else who has the character to stand over what they say.

Troll him or anyone else at all and you are gone.

Henry JoY said...

Anthony

the quotes whether old hat or not were posted by way of response to Sean's assumptive deflection "Glad you's enjoyed the piece lads" thereby ignoring the substance of both Larry's and my own critique (which is his right of course).

On administrative matters: You are the gaffer here, its your blog after-all. And you put the site together in such a way to allow posters anonymity. If that doesn't work for you any more, then change it!

Where's the evidence that I'm attempting to smear Sean? I think if anyone (neutral and unbiased that is) were bothered enough to take time to look at the totality of exchanges between Sean and I they'd find that Sean was always the one who resorted to invective personalisations first and most often by far.
On the rare occasion where I have behaved in what could be considered anything close to an attempted smear they'd find it was a perhaps justifiable response to Sean's hostile ad hominem(s).

Maybe your back is still giving you some gip or maybe my position on the Societies challenge some of your own beliefs but all in all I think you're giving this too much focus. My comments to Sean are timid enough compared to the insults I've seen traded over my time here on the Quill and mild in comparison to what Larry doles out in response to Sean's articles (and yes I do understand Larry Hughes is not a pseudonym).

Put your attention to where it might provide some dividends and give us an article on acceptable practices for use of the site.

AM said...

Henry Joy,

that you understand Larry has the courage to say it without hiding is all that matters.

I am spending no more time on it. You know the score. If you abuse the facility of anonymity that is provided for the dissemination of ideas rather than hiding, you will be over with people of like mind. And you can hardly complain. You applauded Michael Henry going.

larry hughes said...

Henry Joy

I have done the 'tango' on here with John Magirr and Fionnuala Perry and it was most enjoyable. I was warned to stay out of Tyrone at one stage and Tain Bo went one better than that. But I went to an event in Tyrone anyhow, without bullet proof vest or crash helmet and John, Sean Bres and all there treated me like royalty and we enjoyed the day and a had a good laugh. Never take anything too much to heart.

I have deep reservations about the 1916 societies, not the people or their commitment, but of the futility of it all. But that is me, I'm only one person and may be proven wrong, though I doubt it.

sean bres said...

Tony, I've long-since determined on ignoring everything and anything the boul' Dick Turpin has to say, as for me his positions have no credibility - and not because of the use of a moniker (which I've no issue with in the broad scheme of things). The size of his somersault on here is equal to anything we've seen from our former comrades, whether on welfare reform or anything else, and it's on THAT basis and no other I believe him to be simply full of mad-dog shite - no matter how skilful he may be at dressing it up. I would willingly debate for days on any issue this bollocks brings up, in fact I love nothing better, but why bother when the purpose of the other party is simply to make mischief rather than a heartfelt attempt to have a meaningful discussion. Seriously like, how can we take a man seriously who began as a staunch O'Bradaigh man and has shape-shifted to the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I can't. I know you're not taking anyone's part but thanks for intervening. I thanked the lads and expressed my satisfaction that they enjoyed the article for no other reason than because they said that they had

AM said...

Sean,

people can change even if few were persuaded by that particular one.

I think the critique he makes of the republican perspective many argue here is very plausible and I wish more would consider his views. But anonymity is not a strong propellant for pushing ideas. People who take their ideas seriously really need to come up to the plate and stand over them. There is hardly anything in his ideas that would get him into trouble. They are not really Charlie Hebdo type expressions. So the assumption is always going to be a lack of character.

I shun anonymity like the plague. I find it the most cowardly thing to expose to ridicule the ideas of someone else who has the courage to stand over their position. Anonymity is only ever for the purpose of disseminating ideas not for hiding behind for the purpose of ridiculing those willing to stand over their ideas.

But if he is trolling and stalking either you or anybody else he goes. Alan is over there not for not for being abusive but for stalking and trolling Martin Galvin. We won't permit it.

Simon said...

Talking about Ruairi O'Bradaigh, I have just started editor Dieter Reinisch's first volume of his Selected Writings and Speeches. Dieter has done a fantastic job. A mammoth task like sorting through Ruairí's speeches would be so demanding to put off the most eager researcher but Dieter knew it would be worth it.

A record for posterity and a guide for today in political Republicanism.

The gargantuan task of research would quickly turn into a worthwhile project. Few men are as articulate, erudite or as sharp as O'Bradaigh was. A joy to read.

Tain Bo said...

In fairness, the Quill is and has been an open forum and over the years, it works without the need for a referee. It is infrequent that the ref weighs in making a call, and to date any calls made have been fair.
I do not recall anyone getting a red card and I do not recall anyone censored. Mickey Henry got his own seat on the subs bench and the end of the line is the sewer.

I doubt anyone would disagree on trolls and stalkers even they are treated fairly with a place in the bog.

Tain Bo said...

Now, now, Larry,

you should have separated that comment so that the decent folk, Nuala, Sean, and John are not tainted.
I was fibbing when I told Henry I am happily sedated “my dark-side & nightmares” I do not want to upset his digestive tract.

Always happy to oblige though unsure if going one better than Tyrone is an accomplishment, good laugh though and I will work on out-doing the other five Counties.

AM said...

Tain,

this blog does not want to lose any of its current commenters, whether it be Henry Joy or Grouch. Like them or loathe them we all have learned something from them at times. We waited quite some time before letting go of Michael Henry.

At the same time this blog has no interest in keeping people who abuse the protocol. It is very hard to get kicked out of TPQ. Given that we are guided by a freedom of expression ethos and have been accused/praised for having taken substantive risks in a bid to promote free speech we don't move against people lightly.

Ultimately, we don't ban people but send them off to a place more suited to their input.

Henry JoY said...

@ AM
Yes I did second 'Tiarna's' (another anonymous poster) proposal to remove Michael Henry. That removal was applauded by most posters, the majority of whom are also anonymous.

Rightly or wrongly, I'm of the opinion that that there's a witch hunt that gets turned on now and again against Henry JoY ! (Frankie let it slip some time ago that he had been the recipient of an email not to address any of my posts which seemed to me to be an organised attempt to send Henry JoY to Coventry.)
I really wonder what's going on ... are contributors or subscribers attempting to influence editorial policy?

As previously requested please furnish some examples of what you perceive as trolling.

I escaped from Bates & Wilkes Central once before. I doubt if I'll pull that one off again (LOL)!

@ Larry

thanks for your comment. I'm fairly thick skinned and unlikely to take any of this to heart. I like you have reservations about the efficacy of the Society's campaign. Its not just futile, its divisive with inherent potentially dangerous out-workings; unforeseen and unintended consequences.

If people care to look back over my comments they will see that I have tended not to personalise things and like you Larry have merely addressed the fcuking futility of theirs and all others actions in pursuit of a mythical Irish Republic.

If its any consolation Larry I think Tain Bo (another anonymous poster) has me in mind now too when he sharpening his knives! (more LOL)

larry hughes said...

Henry Joy

I recon Tain Bo was well oiled and what was typed rather than clever was a rocky horror show when he read it next day lol. I try not to type until im so drunk it looks like shorthand and no one knows what the blazes I was on about. As I said many times, type is only type, better to be regretted than anything physically hurtful.

As for a republic, the people both sides of the border have a lot of shit to sort out before Ireland should even think of reunification. This notion that partition causes all our ills is bunkum.

Tain Bo

we all have our little moments in the 'lime-light'. lol

sean bres said...

If Flip-Flop McGinley, or whoever this guy is, thinks I would be bothered engineering a campaign against him he should consider that I rejected the opportunity to have him summonsed before our very own version of a Padraic Wilson-style court-hearing. Honestly man, get over yourself, I've better things to be at with my time, whoever has the knives out for ye it's nothing to do with me. But given the waste that comes out of your mouth it's no wonder some are sick of your endless and patronising shite-talk - 'Maybe your back is still giving you some gip or maybe my position on the Societies challenge some of your own beliefs but all in all I think you're giving this too much focus'. If you didn't cringe when writing that then God help ye. It's past time for me on this one but I just want to say I can't wait to get Dieter's book and will be meeting up with him shortly regards a research project he's doing on Portlaoise, a great guy and as honest as they come

larry hughes said...

Sean Bres

'a great guy and as honest as they come'

Not something I'd bandy about within republican circles. The fella is a nice chap, but that kind of blanket recommendation cannot be safely applied within Irish republicanism today or at any time.

sean bres said...

Perhaps 'mad as a March hare - in the mould of the boul' Hughes' would be more apt?

larry hughes said...

Sean Bres

no reflection on Dieter, but republican culture would prevent me saying that about anyone these days.

larry hughes said...

Sean Bres

must say you do have a problem continually jumping into the personal and derogatory. At times I think you really did miss the SF boat.

Henry JoY said...

@ Larry

Sure, the old bull (Tain) must have felt as low as a snake's belly when he re-read that post. If you remember I was quite concerned for him at the time and did chide you for being so provocative!

And now I find myself largely in agreement with some of your analysis.

"As for a republic, the people both sides of the border have a lot of shit to sort out before Ireland should even think of reunification. This notion that partition causes all our ills is bunkum.

Absolutely spot on Larry.

@ Sean

once again present some specifics, where is the evidence, where did I say that I believed you were the originator of the email to Frankie?
Once again you have adopted an assumptive defensive position and re-acted as is your wont. That you react in such ways says more about your thinking than it does mine.
You may have been on the list of possible suspects but please don't project your own reactionary thinking patterns onto me. In truth I have no idea of the author though I could put together a list of 3 or 4 likely candidates which probably would include the protagonist(s).

As you've said a couple of times before, we don't know each other. I'm happy enough to allow that you're a decent enough sort. We just differ in our opinions and values as how to create a better society. If we should choose to engage further let's do it with some civility?

I am well greyed in the head and have eaten more turkey dinners than I'll ever eat again so I'd like to think I have gained enough humility to know that the only person I can really change is myself. I have no expectation or need to influence anyone but myself. Neither have I any expectation or need for approval of my views. They are what they are; a dynamic and fluid work in progress (LOL)!
My contributions on here are often helpful in that process (as are the occasional rebuttal and challenge). I write primarily to clarify my own thoughts rather than to influence the thoughts of others.

Its true I have made a 180* turn (flip-flop McGinley, LOL) since arriving here. I can understand that (that) appears inconsistent and insincere. And no doubt is justifiable cause of frustration to those that are single-minded in their approach. I can understand that as someone who also once tended to a myopic perspective on matters facing our people.

Sean, I have had differences of opinions with most posters on here Anthony, Nuala, Táin and goodness knows who else; like most aspiring free thinkers a contrarian position tends to be my default one. Though we differ in many opinions and ideas I have no real interest in personalising any of it. I strongly refute your's and Anthony's allegation that I'm trolling. If such ad hominem(s) are to continue please afford examples and explanations of your rationale.

Henry JoY said...

Oh Sean, I forgot to acknowledge that you did indeed reject the opportunity to initiate our very own court of enquiry.

Though Dr Big Mackers put you on the unenviable spot with that one. He did put you into a no-win negative double bind.
In my opinion, he left you with little option but to adopt the most face-saving position. You choose well though!!!!!

larry hughes said...

There's no point posting the 1916 societies or any other position in open threads or social media and then getting irate or personally abusive if people choose to disagree with you. The force of ones argument - conviction should be sufficient to win the day or not. Even if the other person is not in whole hearted debate. Losing the rag or showing provo bully boy DNA is hardly conducive to winning hearts and minds. If differing views are distasteful don't go public with your own, in a public political or social media forum, Simples. Alec Salmond won more debates and came out on top in more interviews to my mind by simply knowing his stuff and keeping his cool. Fantastic political operator.

DaithiD said...

Henry, I follow this with some concern, counter opinions seem to be less tolerated on here than a year ago . I dont see the point in writing to only agree with whats been put, if its correctly stated originally, id just been feeding my ego thinking my approval is whats lacking. If someone puts a well though counter point to something, like me, im sure you would welcome it just as much as a compliment. That you changed you opinion publically isnt of concern, when the facts as you see them change, opinions should follow suit, its dogmatic otherwise. If you change back to being a Bradyite based on no new information, then its worthy of ridicule.But only then. I welcome reading your posts, even though I dont agree with most/any of it, and the "its all over stuff" can be tedious if on every topic however poetically put.
But someone might say something transformational for republicanism on here one day, I hope they dont refrain from fear of ridicule.

Tain Bo said...

Larry,

I would like to say I was well lit up but I was stone cold sober.

Tain Bo said...

Henry,

you seem out of sorts and a wee bit desperate highlighting the obvious pen names and claiming a paranoid conspiracy to silence you. Personally, I would just tell you to go play blindfolded with the buses.

I was going to let this one fly but since you are trying to divert attention the truth is I regret taking the comment down. I have the original though keep on winding but as winding goes, you are amateurish at that amongst other things.

You do play people you even had a go at a poster called Donna for no reason. Do not flatter yourself, it is only here you would get a thought in my mind and that would be you are whining agitator.
If you had read Anthony’s post, the issued was over but you could not resist attempting to sound like the victim that is the victim of your own arseholery.

Close, I just finished sharpening my chisels after doing wee bit of woodwork, I do not like when my blades are dull but they are never as dull as you are.
It would be too simple to mess with your mind and on that note remember no one is anonymous on the web.

A wee bit of indulging your gurning quick draw Henry

I made you a fair offer a while back, still stands; you lapped out on that one. Not being of sound mind do not worry superman your identity is safe with me.

Henry JoY said...

Dáithí

Thanks for your comments and observations. Interesting that you picked up on the undertones too.

At the risk of being accused of trolling yet again, I'd still contest that Sean often avoids engaging on substantive issues. His tendency is to react and attack; Larry refers to this as Provo bully-boy DNA and I once similarly commented to Sean that it appeared as if 'you can take the man out of the Provos but its much more difficult to take the Provo out of the man'.

I guess some of this stuff is getting rather repetitive (and tedious) but if the crowd keep crying 'what a wonderful set of clothes the King has on' the little boy is entitled to keep repeating back 'he's naked, can't ye see he's fcuking naked'.

As my new found and unlikely ally one Mr Hughes stated earlier,

"As for a republic, the people both sides of the border have a lot of shit to sort out before Ireland should even think of reunification. This notion that partition causes all our ills is bunkum.'

Any skilled navigator knows that if you fail to get an accurate fix on where you're at, (polls suggest that only about one third of CRN's are fully prepared to vote for a United Ireland, 2% of PUL's) you're never going to arrive at the destination you want to get to.
The Societies are like SF in that they fail to recognise this fundamental. All they offer is mythical misdirection and distraction from the 'shit' Larry alludes to.

sean bres said...

@Larry: 'Must say you do have a problem continually jumping into the personal and derogatory. At times I think you really did miss the SF boat.'

At times I think you should take a joke in your stride for that's all was meant - still can't figure out why you had to question the reference to Dieter but sure hey, let's just say nothing good about anyone. As for missing the Sinn Fein boat, hmmm... Your politics are more and more as theirs with every passing day it seems, and I don't mean any disrespect - they really are. For a man who gave us 'stick it to the Prods, the only thing bad in terms of Kingsmill was not enough of them were taken out' but who now preaches republicans are regressive and devoid of political analysis I'm lost at times. One minute it's republicanism is worthless the next it's the Broad Black Brimmer, make sense of that if you will

Henry JoY said...

Tain

if you'd had read Anthony's post you might have noticed that he's been creating a straw man argument with me around anonymity for some time now.

The greatest majority post anonymously here, yourself included.
Way off with ye and throw your darts in another direction.

larry hughes said...

Tain Bo

good to see you back in your element. Bravo!

larry hughes said...

Sean Bres

To hold anyone up as 'sound as they come' within republicanism (nothing to do with Dieter)is akin to skating on thin ice wearing lead boots and a 50lb rucksack. But some lessons are never learned, or perhaps each generation has to reinvent the wheel or try developing gills.

Republicanism as you insist on defining it is not relevant to me. Or the country in my opinion. SF became popular by abandoning it when the troubles had run out of steam. There are publicans the length and breadth of Ireland here who will wave tri-colours in 2016 serving pints with tears in their eyes who will tell you yer not welcome if you talk about the north or republican politics any other day of the week, month, year or century. There's your 'people' for you, knock yourself out!

As for Kingsmill, the debate was about the atmosphere at the time like most of which you only ever read about and I stand by my position 500%. The fact you play by eternal loser rules means you will be exactly that, eternal loser. Israel wasn't founded by nice boys accepting their families getting murdered, and the loyalists don't retain the wee 6 by that strategy either.

Listening to the perpetual harping on and lamenting makes the border a none issue. Megga turn off in fact. Westminster should pull the plug on Stormont, (where you are headed too if you're lucky) and the sham gravy train you're all chasing and give every ones head peace. My taste in music is not relevant either.

Henry Joy

No one was having a go at Tain Bo, his latest posts are an insight into a troubled mind. Let him horse on there.

DaithiD said...

Henry, to be fair to grouch, he didnt even try undertones, it was overt insults!
Some people have public names but are effectively anonymous because what they write is for the purpose of political posturing or rim-licking (and as importantly,being seen to rim-lick) or both.Its probably why they answer reason with emotion. Nothing you write is so bad as to warrant anonymity, but its increasingly obscuring the considered analysis you bring, it might be worth re-considering if you wish to change this dynamic.

sean bres said...

Are you saying there are posturing rim-lickers on here that match your comment David, if so who're ye referring to?

sean bres said...

Larry it really saddens me to see the change in your politics this past while - basically you are a Shinner these days. That's fine and something I can live with, that's your right at the end of the day but the shift in attitude is another matter. I for one am tired of your perpetual attempts to run down republicans as though they had nothing to offer society when in fact they have everything to offer. The idea partition is not part of the problem is absurd and to hear you making it is bad enough, but to hear you constantly attacking those whore really only trying to make a difference and have nothing but good intention is getting old - for the simple fact it isn't true. Just because you are a defeated old man (whatever the hell changed in ye the last six months) don't expect everyone just to say aye forget it, let's let it be. The country is coped, we can't afford to let it be, we need to be arguing for and making change not excepting our lot. Someone should post a link to the Sinn Fein membership page because every one of your arguments is a mirror of theirs

sean bres said...

I mean like fine, you've given up... Just don't try and do down those who still want to see what can be made of the situation - especially when you get drunk and behave exactly like those pint-swilling Paddies shouting 'tiocfaidh ar la' on St. Patrick's Day that you're talking about above. No offence intended a chara but I honestly can't make head nor tale of some of the arguments and the attitude behind them that you've been making this past 6 months or whatever it is. At first I thought you were just trying to provoke constructive dialogue but it seems at this stage you just have a severe bee in your bonnet and a total hate-the-world approach to republicanism. For the record I don't shirk debate at all, there hasn't been one - certainly not on this thread. The article was barely discussed, not that I need any pat on the back for it because it was wrote to remember the people in question and no other reason. I'm saying no more as this is going nowhere. Slan

DaithiD said...

Sean, I am saying that.
Its a reasonable question to ask, but I dont think I will be giving names, it wasnt the purpose of my comment to get into that.

larry hughes said...

Sean Bres

I had no idea you 1916 societies held copy right for the wolf tones or rebel music in general. But then sure you have copy right over Ireland's rebel dead too in your own mind. As for SF I have little interest in them. They are the latest living proof of the futility of republicanism. I suspect all your ambitions are to displace SF electorally as they did the SDLP. Honestly not worth the wait. I'm not the shiner here Sean, you are, in waiting.

If you guys in the societies get a referendum on Irish unity your emotional sentimentality will not win the day. Henry Joy is correct on this one, and in my opinion we will be more embarrassed than the Scots. Much more embarrassed.

Henry JoY said...

@ Larry

do you think was TB in the nuttin' squad? He's got both the right IQ & EQ for the job after all!

@ Dáithí I've reconsidered my position and have decided to take a new avatar. If I can manage to navigate my way through changing by 'blog' profile I'll post as Flip Flop McGinley.

Seriously though, I doubt if I'd ever be bothered to go public with my views, though I did in the last few weeks have a number of conversations with one of those prominent republicans who went public in the media about their reservations on continued armed resistance about eighteen months ago. And we agreed that the capacity for influence around such matters, in real terms, is minimal.

I'm still not ready to come out on that score. As I've previously stated my scribblings on here are more about consolidating my own processes rather than outcomes or influence. Indeed I take yours and Anthony's point on the limitations of commenting anonymously. Though as I say the desire to have influence, if indeed I could have any, is very low on my wish list. Though activism still tugs at me I am currently focused on learning a new language and working on a further professional qualification.

I also have to factor in ramifications for others as well as myself. My aged mother is a proud republican, her father was interned in the twenties in both Larne Workhouse and later on the prison-ship Argenta. My late father's uncle was in the GPO during the Easter Rebellion. Some of my siblings are professionals, they have been generous and supportive over the years to both myself and my children. Some of the family in-laws are still committed armed force republicans, one of whom may or may not have been CS in the Continuity ... all said I don't believe there's any great gain to be had in unsettling or upsetting any of these parties by posting my views publicly. I'd add though, most of those mentioned are aware of my change in stance.

As you already know Dáithí it all works out in the long run.

(Oh by the way, good old 'grouch' like all noble republicans had a death wish, he just choose Anthony to help him in rehersals)!

Tain Bo said...

Henry,

alternatively, Henrietta, this one should have been put to sleep but again you insist on agitation if you must have a dig at me do not involve others they can speak without your desperate encouragement.

Personally, it is amusing that you create fantasy about me a tad on the side of creepy. The war is over me and my abnormally low IQ sits inside your mind. A rather sad statement given your superior intellectual quality consistently outwitted and slapped down by a dullard.

I am aware General Obvious of the nom de plume policy your understanding is a wee bit wobbly as you view as a right based on how many others use the same privilege by your own logic if all use proper names then you should follow.

On the subject of fantasy/conspiracy, your lofty self should consider your position as just another poster instead of this imaginary silence Henrietta. To date your posts go through that may indicate a wee touch of theatrical paranoia self-induced-victimhood all very pitiful.

Try a different approach instead of seeking allies or sympathy and a pat on the back. As I said, when I close the Quill it is on to other things.

I do not like darts and if I were throwing something, they definitely would not be on the list.
The quick draw Henry is an example of Hollywood theatrics although I knew it would stick in a mind or two. Amusing but not practical at best you are a nuisance but as fortune goes you are someone else’s problem.

If you dish it out expect it back... with interest and with that I will leave it at checkmate!