Sunday, November 11, 2007
UDA stands down.. the UFF..
The BBC report that the UDA have issued what Jackie McDonald claimed would be a “significant statement” and, although the detail remains to be seen, it seems that they are saying they will stand down the UFF.. at midnight tonight. And they’ve claimed that “UFF weapons were being put beyond use, but stressed that this does not mean they will be decommissioned.” ANYhoo.. Apparently, “The Ulster Defence Association is committed to achieving a society where violence and weaponry are ghosts of the past.” In response to which, I’ll quote Ian Paisley Snr - “it will only come when rigorous law enforcement takes place..” Adds According to this report, “The Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has [already] warmly welcomed the statement describing it as a significant step.”
Update The BBC’s Politics Show included a clip of Jackie McDonald speaking today in which he made clear that he wants to see a UDA-endorsed political representative elected to the Assembly - a point which fits with something he said previously. He also referred to the people he, and the UDA, represent - forgetting that he hasn’t actually been elected.
And he stated, in relation to decommissioning - “They’re not the UDA’s guns. They’re the people’s guns.”
Pete Baker @ 12:10 PM
Has the dancing in the streets in the “loyalist” communities started yet?
Thought not.Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 07:26 PMTurgon,
Sorry - I don’t agree with the thesis that everybody who uses violence is evil. If you think that makes me an apologist for evil you should try a get a course on joined up thinking.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 07:30 PMThe corollary is true, lib.
Some people who use violence are evil.Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 07:37 PMlib 2016,
“I don’t agree with the thesis that everybody who uses violence is evil.”Well since you clearly think those who committed the Enniskillen bombing were far from evil and clearly, whatever you may claim; you other posts demonstrate that that act was far from evil in your book. I guess that chimes with Douglas Derring’s murder, the Shankill fish shop, Darkley, Kingsmill, Teebane. No none of them were evil acts nor were they committed by evil men in the special moral universe inhabited by you and the IRA, lib.
I must admit of all the cheerleaders you are the most persistent and the most accepting of whatever your heroes Martin and Gerry tell you to think.
Indeed lib I am sure my thinking is not joined up. I have never metaphorically sat at the feet of those experts in joined up thinking like Gerry Adams who tells us that it was the moral responsibility of people other than the republican movement to find a way for the IRA to stop killing people. You on the other hand have done their course so well I expect you have a PhD in the subject. A sort of doctorate of cheerleading. Indeed taken together all your posts are your doctoral thesis with this one being the finest:
“As for Enniskillen itself - the nationalist population was under attack from the British Army and the community which backed them. They fought back and when there is violence innocent people get hurt....end of story.”
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 07:44 PMjoeC,
True, but the man who casts the first stone etc. It seems to me that to allow ourselves to casually dismiss large numbers of people as evil is part of the brutalisation which allows us to use force in the first place.
Part of the whole religion thing and an outdated way of thinking about people.
BTW I’ve scraped the blood from the walls after killings off and by representives of both communities. It was the same colour for both and the same heartache.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 07:50 PMWell, just for the record, I would never casually or otherwise dismiss large numbers of people as evil. That is why I used the word “some”.
But also for the record, I do believe that the people who carried out the Enniskillen massacre, on a day of remembrance of all days, are evil.Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 07:59 PMjoe,
I’ve enjoyed the friendship of retired (as far as I know) paramilitaries from both the UVF and IRA. All were inclined to zealotry but otherwise nice people to be with.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 08:20 PMI also believe the people who sanctioned the massacre of thousands of working class Irish men in Flanders and who carried out the terrorist attack on Dresden and other cities are evil and should not be being commemorated today.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 08:21 PMI don’t disagree with the first part of your assertion, Mekong.
But we are not commemorating the “leaders” today; we are simply remembering the many young men (for the most part) who did what they felt was right, or perhaps were just carefree youngsters.
I, for one, do not honour any of the heartless bastards who sent those youngsters “over the top” to almost certain death. But I cannot forget the sacrifices made by the rank and file.Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 08:28 PMThe word sacrafice is immotive and suggests that these men died willingly for King and country, absolute shite, the ruling classes conscripted or bluffed many men into the ranks to be slaughtered in their European power games. Most Irish men joined in an attempt to escape starvation and feed their families or under the misguided notion of defending the rights of small nations, the late Roger Casement noted ‘that promissary note payable only after death’. The unjustness of these conflicts is masked in the pomp and cermony of the ruling classes who have preside over them and exonerate their actions, you who are complicate in this do likewise.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 08:40 PMI think you meant “complicit” Mekong.
I have already said I do not honour the leaders in WW1. If you feel the need to call my honour into disrepute, well, what more can I say.Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 08:49 PMGod forbid I would doubt your honour Joe, I do not know you. Yet I ask those who are willing to participate in these annual cermonies for British service personnel were is the questions about were there lives (’sacrafice’) worth it. Or should there not be one question asked in all this coverage of the those sent them there and their motivations. By continuing this unquestioning procession the real terrorists get away in the smoke.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 09:05 PM” but otherwise nice people to be with.”
I completely understand, lib.
I believe it for a fact that some erstwhile world leaders were also dog lovers.Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 09:09 PM” British Service personnel
When I lived in Ireland, I mainly remembered the Irish, and now that I live in Canada, I mainly remember the Canadians.
But, yes, I do remember the young British folk, and, though it may surprise you, I also remember the young Germans who were needlessly sacrificed (I have no problem with that word) also.Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 09:14 PMUnfortunately this thread has been side tracked into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the World Wars. If my initial post contributed to that I am sorry; I merely tried to present the difference between the UDA and any real army; a difference the UDA try desperately and at every point to confuse.
The rights and wrongs of the World Wars is a reasonable topic for discussion at another time. Our business here is to discuss loyalist criminals.
To confuse loyalist criminals with any army is to play into the hands of the loyalist terrorists. They repeatedly try to conflate their sordid campaign and behaviour with that of the Allies during the First and Second World War; armies which many members of the unionist (and indeed nationalist) community hold in high regard. Armies which contained many of their kith and kin. The alphabet soup of loyalist killers were nothing like the allies in the Second World War. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s law, however, if one wishes to liken the loyalist terrorists to anyone in the Second World War they were more akin to the Nazi SS. They like the loyalists specialised in heroic actions against unarmed civilians chosen for their perceived differentness. Clearly the scale of the loyalists murders was different but the hatred and bigotry and especially the cowardice bare some similarities.
For the UDA to tell us that they will “stand down” the UFF and then hold it up as a good thing is pathetic. This pseudo military terminology simply means that when they sell drugs, pimp unfortunate women, wreck children’s life chances, terrorise the elderly and blight the lives of working class Protestant communities they will do this either as the UDA or as simply an unnamed pack of criminals. So their guns are “beyond use” are they? It did not take guns to murder so many of their recent victims.
No doubt soon some do-gooders will propose that the CTI should get their money back. To that they need the resounding statements of two old unionist sound bites which are particularly prescient at this point: “Not an inch” and “No surrender”. For assuredly with the UDA and their ilk if you give them an inch they will take a mile and whatever their warped view of the Crown they are much more fond of the Half-crown.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 09:29 PMAs I have said Joe I do not doubt your integrity or honour, but from Canada you may not witness the unquestioning embelishment of the First World War in particular that goes on at this time of year by the British media. I come from a part of Irealnd that has suffered heavily from the British military in years gone by, so forgive me if I struggle to emphasise with the pro Britiish cermonies here. Of course every soldier, from all sides, in every war should be remembered and is by thie families. But were British cermonies stray into the unquestioning glorification of war presided over by the ruling elites who presided over the slaughter, I feel it is time for questions.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 09:35 PMApologises ‘emphasise’ should read ‘empathise’
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 09:38 PMMekong,
I, of course, being so far away, really know nothing about that.
I appreciate your understanding that there is nothing wrong about families, and others, remembering their loved ones.Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 09:42 PMNo doubt Turgon and apologies for the side track, however when will the questions be asked of the British Government who nurtured it,fed with information, weapons and regularly assisted this bastion of loyalism and drug dealing empire since its inception, banning it only in 1992.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 09:45 PMMekong,
I have little doubt there was some collusion. Some may have been pure bigotry and sectarianism, some from a perverted wish to allow some evil to prevent other greater evil; I do not know. It was completely morally wrong as it was completely foolish.The amount, I also have no doubt was limited and at a fairly low level; not that that excuses any of it. However, had it been rife the alphabet soup would have killed many more IRA members and not simply the large number of random Catholics they did kill.
In terms of proscribing the UDA I would agree 1992 was far too late.
In terms of asking questions; the problem is that is that if questioning begins whataboutery is entirely reasonable and there are lots and lots of questions lots and lots of people could reasonably be asked.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 10:18 PMTurgon
Serious question: what is “evil”?
It’s a religious concept, is it not?
I’ve always struggled with the idea that two people could commit identical acts, but perhaps only one of them is “evil”.
Eg: the proof that Osama Bin Laden is “evil” is that he ordered the 9/11 atrocities, resulting in the deaths of c. 2,500 people. Ok. No argument here. Yet Churchill ordered Dresden and Truman ordered Hiroshima and Nagasaki, each resulting in dozens of 9/11s (in terms of bodycount). But Churchill and Truman are regarded as “good”.
To my eyes, there is no distinction that is rooted in fundamental principles. The distinction is that we, in the west, agree with Churchill’s and Truman’s objectives but not Bin Laden’s - but clearly these are earthly, political, subjective distinctions, not fundamental ones. Our objection to 9/11 is case-specific, not fundamental, just as our approval of Hiroshima is case-specific, not fundamental. (By and large most of us are against the nuking of cities most of the time.)
Most people don’t really think mass murder is “evil” per se - indeed it’s sometimes argued that it’s “good”. But we all certainly think it’s “evil” when it happens to us.
I’m guilty of it myself. For example, I feel a searing sense of moral repugnance at the Bloody Sunday massacre, yet I honestly can bring myself to care about the British soldiers killed at Narrow Water. It’s a moral failing on my part, and I’m willing to admit to it.
But I think it’s worth remembering, as we remember “our dead” (whomever they may be), that those in the armed forces (whether regular or irregular) are first and foremost, trained killers. Many have died, and they signed up knowing that death was a possibility, but none signed up so they could die. It was not their job to die, and the brave boys of the 36th Ulster weren’t sent to the Somme in order to “lay down their lives”, or some other poetic conceit. It was their job to kill.
It’s worth bearing that in mind when watching the undoubtedly impressive ceremony at Whitehall today. And it’s certainly worth bearing in mind when using religious terminology like “good” and “evil”.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 11:05 PMSo the UDA leadership announces that the guise under which they apparently didn’t commit so many of their atrocities under, the UFF, is to cease to exist?! So let me get this right - the UFF had no connection to the UDA but even in it’s final moments that completely separate organisation has chosen to release its ‘decommissioning’ statement through the UDA!
Pull the other one Jackie - saying, “They’re not the UDA’s guns” is as convincing as the standard line of denial from Gerry Adams over the years about the IRA and SF not being one and the same thing.
I’m glad that this ‘event’ has not been given the glorious fanfare of news coverage that the UDA would have liked, they don’t deserve it. Additionally, timing this announcement to coincide with Rememberance Sunday is nauseating in the extreme. Does this bunch of neanderthals really think they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the war heroes of yester year? Never mind the rival thugs in the UVF who love to make sure their ‘1916 - ‘ banner (disgracefully trying to link the present incarnation of drug-dealers and scumbags with the battalions that fought and died at the Somme) is on view for all to see during the 12th.
Loyalist paramilitaries disgust me. They make me feel ashamed to call myself a Protestant and a Unionist. A famous politician once said about Unionists in general, (I forget off the top of my head exactly who it was), “their loyalty is not to the crown but to the half-crown”. These guys sure do live up to that stereotype. We all know that the only reason they have decided to call it a day now is because Margaret Ritchie reiterated that she would withdraw their funding in the next 60 days. They are so transparent - when the carrot of a few million quid was dangled in front of them they couldn’t resist. How galling it must be for them to dance to the tune of a Nationalist assembly member. But then again they’re probably too thick and/or too consumed with greed to appreciate the irony.
Incidentally does the sentence, “They’re the people’s guns” have any relevance? - after all the weapons were no doubt bought with taxpayers money?
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 11:12 PMI can’t really forgive the loyalist paramilitaries for believing that they speak for the people. Unionist politicians are very nice to them, and at times step forward to defend their interests, like William McCrea did for Billy Wright. On other occasions, the unionist community has en masse swung behind the leadership of the loyalist paramilitaries when they used thuggery to force their will, as they did in 1974 during the UWC strike, and as they attempted to do again a few years later with Paisley (who failed to raise the necessary support).
I think a lot of unionists begrudgingly don’t offer up stiff resistance to loyalist paramilitaries, finding their existence to be unpleasant but “understandable”. In this respect, they’re pretty much the same as the nationalists who didn’t resist the IRA despite having their lives interfered with and their places of work blown up, and indeed being blown up or shot themselves “by mistake”. It can’t have failed to cross the minds of nationalists that the IRA’s actions provided the pretext for the deployment of troops into their neighbourhoods, or indeed the loyalist sectarian assassination campaign.
Let’s face it, no unionist has ever run an election campaign with eliminating loyalist paramilitarism on their election manifesto. The people telling us that unionism is clean and wants nothing to do with them need to explain why that is.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 11:23 PMOn an aside, I can’t actually believe that the UDA had the bare-faced cheek to have a remembrance parade through Tiger’s Bay this morning. I hope they were remembering Dean Clarke (a 16 year old victim of ‘war’ who will never appear on any monument) and the part they played in his death. Bastards.
Posted by on Nov 11, 2007 @ 11:50 PMIs there such a person as someone who is all evil or all good? We are all capable of being good or evil, of committing good acts or evil acts. All murder, that is, the taking of another person’s life without their consent in the basic definition, is an evil act. At the time of perpetrating the evil act, the ‘good’ person becomes an ‘evil’ person. Necessary evil is a term that is sometimes used to describe such actions when we feel they serve some higher purpose or cause. I don’t see why there should be so much apparent confusion about it.
As for the UDA, as pointed out they remained legal until 1992, despite clearly being involved in murder. I vaguely recall at one point when some nationalists, SDLP probably, were berating British politicians to proscribe them, the excuse that there were too many in the UDA to proscribe it was trotted out. Didn’t the UDA at one point claim they had something in the order of 60,000 to 100,000 members?
Turning to Turgon’s point that the collusion was low level, and had it been higher or better organised the loyalist paramilitaries would have killed many more IRA than they did. That assumes killing IRA was the purpose of the collusion in the first place.
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 12:11 AM
