Thursday, March 15, 2007
Jackie McDonald, the UDA, and equality..
UTV news just carried a report on a St Patrick’s breakfast held at the La Mon hotel. Whilst one of the speakers was DUP leader Ian Paisley the notable part of the report was an interview with one of the guests, UDA leader Jackie McDonald. And we got the rare sight of McDonald commenting publicly on the UDA. But the point to note was not, as the report suggests, his urging of the DUP to go into government with SF, it was his ruling out of UDA decommissioning until “they get what Sinn Féin and the IRA got”. [Are you listening Mr Hain? - Ed] No doubt that message has already been received by those in more regular contact with Mr McDonald. Seems like the Process™ still has some way to go on those poisonous foundations. Updated below Final Update
The quote above, while accurately capturing what Jackie McDonald said, does paraphrase what he said. I had one hearing to get the gist of it since the report was not online. Hearing it again, in the 6pm programme, I’ve had a chance to try to note the actual quote, on when the UDA would decommission.
“Whenever they’re afforded the luxuries that Sinn Féin and the IRA were afforded.. whenever they get what the IRA got.. maybe then.”
Again I’m open to correction on that quote.. the report [15th March] will be online, at some point, here
Final Update Now that the report is online I’ve been able to get the full quote - the relevant section is about halfway through the show.
“Whenever they’re afforded all the luxuries that Sinn Féin and the IRA were afforded, and they’re given some of the things that the IRA got, then perhaps it could be at the horizon but it’s not on the radar at the minute.”
Pete Baker @ 02:07 PM
Most of you missed the important part of this post
The great vain glorious Ian Paisley always said he wouldnt share a room with terrorists
and the little wanker is sharing breakfast with them
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:32 AMI’ve just been reading the second booklet which the CTI have produced, ‘Learning from others in conflict’.
Then why don’t they ‘learn from others’ and decommission and cease criminal activity?IMO the UPRG probably look at the Republican movement with a large degree of envy. Here was an organisation that, right or wrongly, had support from a large section of the community and political credibility.
As much as some in the UDA/UPRG would like to be in that situation, I’m afraid it ain’t gonna happen. Why? They don’t have a mandate. Until they do, they shouldn’t get a legitimate penny from anyone.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:32 AMGetting back to the main question, “What did Sinn Fein and/or the IRA get?”
Though its been made to look like they got all these concessions from the british govt, in reality, they just got what was rightfully theirs.
The UDA never had to shed the cloak of second-class citizenship and all that it entailed.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:45 AMSean,
Great point.
Great hypocrisy.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 02:30 PMIRinA,
You know when you hear people saying things like “black people get everything” or “immigrants get everything”? Well its a bit like that.
Posted by bpower on Mar 15, 2007 @ 03:10 PM
No it’s not, that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. Slavery was only abolished 200 years ago and black people had to fight for equal rights with the white majority in countries like the United States through people like Martin Luther King on the streets and Muhammed Ali inside and outside the boxing ring.
Contraat that with the IRA, who bombed Ulster and mainland Britain to bits and targeted other parts of Europe where there was a British military presence. They murdered and maimed thousands of innocent people in their sectarian, racist pogrom to create a white, “Irish” Aryan race within a 32-county one-party Marxist state...the UDA/UFF cannot be equated to white oppressors, and the Provies to the black minority when the IRA and their ethnic cleansing of the only-son of Protestant farming families in border areas like South Armagh mirrors that of the Bosnian Serbs’ pogrom against the Muslims…
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 02:33 PMAs it is he is just another extortionist who ruins a good suit.
Posted by Pat Mc Larnon on Mar 15, 2007 @ 06:12 PM
Ball and not the man...you seem to have a habit of that McLarnon, I’ve pulled you on it on a number of occasions now.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 02:37 PMTo my comment: “When you and your so-called comrades went round collecting money for the Provies of Sinn Fein/IRA in the bars and clubs of Boston and Irish immigrant districts of New York did you stop to think the damage you were doing to my community, the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist people? Or did you, like your Shinner mates over here, just dismiss us as “settler” scumbags who were disillusioned Irishman in an identity crisis? “
Dread Chulth replied “"**plays a small violin**"” .
Well, to be perfectly honest with you I could easily say the same about the killings of Finucane and Hamill for example, but unlike you I feel that both communities deserve the truth and for justice to prevail…
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 02:45 PMThey murdered and maimed thousands of innocent people in their sectarian, racist pogrom to create a white, “Irish” Aryan race within a 32-county one-party Marxist state...
Past tense. And the primary objective was to get rid of the British. A 32 county socialist republic was an aspiration that I doubt anyone in the Republican movement believes will come around now. Are the voters in the South going to vote out the Celtic Tiger in favour of socialism?As I said - past tense. So your earlier comments about people in the UDA feeling the need to justify their existence under the dubious claim of defence are misguided at best and bogus at worst given the criminality within the loyalist paramilitary ranks.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 02:57 PMbut unlike you I feel that both communities deserve the truth and for justice to prevail…
If you truly wish justice to prevail, then, FFS, drop this deluded support of the UDA!
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:01 PMConcerned Loyalist-but unlike you I feel that both communities deserve the truth and for justice to prevail…
Truth and justice ...waht by trying to ligitimise then UDA?Get a grip
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:02 PM‘...when the IRA and their ethnic cleansing of the only-son of Protestant farming families in border areas like South Armagh mirrors that of the Bosnian Serbs’ pogrom against the Muslims…’
Why not go the whole hog and compare it to the Holocaust while you at it?
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:45 PMConcerned Loyalist
So you call IR in A a “prick” but then Pat’s not playin the ball. Kinda sums up what Loyalism is about.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:51 PMDublin Exile,
Glad you have read the pamphlet (the latest in an ongoing series). The quotes you have read were taken verbatim from the International Workshop and show a real desire to move forward and learn (emphasis on learn) from others as well as the errors (self inflicted to some extent) of the past. I am gratified that you see potential in what is being said. To some the change is too slow, to others it is way too fast. Change worries people and destabilises fixed views and beliefs. So this will be a SLOW process, attempting to bring everyone together.
Miss Flood is correct in her analysis and I’ll briefly explain why. To put your head above the parapet and seek a new direction is inherently dangerous.It can rankle some people and flat out enrage others. It causes jealousy and resentment. To all those debating on a message board (and Slugger is a very good one indeed) it simply means holding to a view and explaining it, arguing it around and then turning off the computer when you have had enough. It costs you nothing. When real people (not internet gossipers) put forward challenging views in public and argues them in private to a large group of people it is not a party game or a piece of fun. It is a calculated moral decision to change society and is particularly brave. All those who are quick to deride and pontificate will no doubt be as critical of Mary and Martin? After all they have seen the potential of Mr McDonald and others in that particular organisation and have taken steps (bravely again in my opinion) to show support and solidarity.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 03:52 PMLHW,
Miss Flood is correct in her analysis and I’ll briefly explain why.
Calling McDonald an intellectual is classed as analysis? And you actually believe this? You’ve been taking too many of those tablets that your colleagues punt out.McDonald is a thug in a decent suit. Like putting a silk hat on a pig.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 04:03 PMLooks like we’ll have to wait another 24 hours on CL getting back to us. Maybe he had to run his responses by the boys.
And how is referring to Jackie McDonald as a gangster in a suit playing the man and not the ball.
I’d like to see how he might sue for libel on that one in court.
Maybe the concern which so exercises our loyalist pal would be better directed at those who’ve brought that community to its knees through extortion, drug deadling and murder.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 04:50 PMNorthsider ,It almost makes you feel bad, not so much playin the man as man versus empty net.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 05:12 PMLoyalists have every reason to be concerned...about loyalists expressing concerns like concerned loyalist. Nuff Said.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:51 PMCL: “Well, to be perfectly honest with you I could easily say the same about the killings of Finucane and Hamill for example, but unlike you I feel that both communities deserve the truth and for justice to prevail… “
Only if you ignore the fundamental differences, CL. Loyalism is not the suspect re: Finucane, the British state.
Face it—Loyalism has almost no mandate and represents no one’s interests save their own. If we need speak specifics, the UDA and their sock-puppet of a political fig-leaf / feather—there is insufficient substance, real and metaphorical, to call it a “wing”—represent nothing other than a collection of thugs who want to belly up to the public trough.
Likewise, Loyalism does not want “justice to prevail,” since there is too much money to be made off of drug turf and protection.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2007 @ 01:19 PMMcDonald is a thug in a decent suit.
That, dear boy, is not a decent suit!
Posted by on Mar 20, 2007 @ 01:28 PM“Past tense. And the primary objective was to get rid of the British.”
Posted by marty (not ingram) on Mar 16, 2007 @ 02:57 PMSo the PUL community was collateral, eh?
Posted by on Mar 21, 2007 @ 12:20 PMMany of you are being unfair to Jackie McDonald. He is the intellectual heartbeat of the UDA and deserves respect for the incisive analysis he brings to the table. That has long been recognised by Mary & Martin.
Miss Flood
Posted by Miss Flood on Mar 16, 2007 @ 08:23 AM
This is what I’ve been saying for a very long time now. I’m going to be frank here.
FUCK Johnny Adair.
FUCK Jim Gray.
FUCK Andre and Ihab Shoukri and Alan McClean.None of these men were TRUE Loyalists, they were all in it for the “Benjamins” as they say in Black America. I don’t hold strong loyalist ideals and aspirations because I think my bank balance will profit from it, I believe in my cause and want to see it through to the end. If that means taking up arms and fighting for Ulster’s freedom then so be it, but at the present time I believe it is right to form a power-sharing executive with the Shinners and I want to give politics a chance…
Posted by on Mar 21, 2007 @ 12:32 PMConcerned Loyalist: “Many of you are being unfair to Jackie McDonald. He is the intellectual heartbeat of the UDA and deserves respect for the incisive analysis he brings to the table. That has long been recognised by Mary & Martin.”
In the ‘hood of the blind, the one-eyed man shall be kingpin…
Concerned Loyalist: “I don’t hold strong loyalist ideals and aspirations because I think my bank balance will profit from it, I believe in my cause and want to see it through to the end.”
Have you looked at the clock lately—it’s over.
Concerned Loyalist: “If that means taking up arms and fighting for Ulster’s freedom then so be it, but at the present time I believe it is right to form a power-sharing executive with the Shinners and I want to give politics a chance.”
Then sit down and hush, whilst the grown-ups (i.e. DUP and SF) decide if there is going to be a government, CL. With *ONE* lone exception, Loyalism has no voice in major political affairs… and that exception is not Jackie-boy.
Loyalism was the bastard child of the BA’s “countergang” tactic, ala Kenya, and Unionist politics. Easily used, foolish enough to trust its parents and easily denied, disowned and disinherited when it suited their purposes.
Posted by on Mar 21, 2007 @ 01:10 PMLoyalism was the bastard child of the BA’s “countergang” tactic, ala Kenya, and Unionist politics. Easily used, foolish enough to trust its parents and easily denied, disowned and disinherited when it suited their purposes.
Posted by Dread Cthulhu on Mar 21, 2007 @ 01:10 PM
Typical republican fayre - I’ll explain....
It is in the so-called Republican Movement’s interests to portray the Loyalists as puppets of British “Imperialism”. This de-legitimizes our ideals, aspirations and our right to defend our people from the cancer of physical-force republicanism. When they tour Colombia, Florida etc they can then point to the fact that the RA/Provos/Provies/RAfia (whatever name you want to call them) are the only indigenous body of people within the island of Ireland who are involved in the struggle as Loyalists are only puppets strung along by their MI5 handlers from London and Special Branch, a force within a force of the “sectarian”, “hostile”, “partisan” RUC/PSNI.
This is black propaganda and couldn’t be further from the truth. It is a well-known fact that both the dissidents and the Provies have been infiltrated from the highest echelons of power down to the grassroots with SB/MI5 agents so I’m sick to the back teeth of the sheer hypocrisy of it all…
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 03:09 PMConcerned Loyalist: “ This de-legitimizes our ideals, aspirations and our right to defend our people from the cancer of physical-force republicanism.”
Actually, I figured the drug-dealing and protection rackets did that. Loyalism became a worse burden upon the community than the threat it sought to prevent, sucking the life out of the communities it putatively sought to defend.
Concerned Loyalist: “It is a well-known fact that both the dissidents and the Provies have been infiltrated from the highest echelons of power down to the grassroots with SB/MI5 agents so I’m sick to the back teeth of the sheer hypocrisy of it all… “
I would have thought the obvious infiltration / co-option of Loyalism would have been enough, at least when combined with the continual battles over drug turf and the bloodless corpse Loyalist leeches have made of their areas.
You have yet to refute the substance of my post, however. Establishing “counter-gangs” is a well-established British tactic, used in several parts of the Empire. Do you imagine, in your arrogance, that they would not do the same in Northern Ireland? Loyalism left political matters to Unionism. How has that worked out for you? They deny you from the pulpit and podium and occasionally make back-door deals, paying lip service to the needs of Loyalist neighborhoods, but seldom delivering.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 03:26 PMYes, it has been a successful British military tactic to arm and train groups that are sympathetic to the British and opponents of anti-British factions throughout the world, but this is the United Kingdom we’re talking about and the circumstances are fundamentally different so I repute your opinions/attempts to engage me in a slanging match…
Posted by on Mar 26, 2007 @ 04:12 PM
