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
Shame on the “UDA” for hijacking Remembrance Sunday with their self-important announcement.
“Standing down” an illegal organisation going by one name, but retaining the same illegal organisation using another name. Wow.
The police should be instructed to move in on them. Zero tolerance policy - hound them; arrest them for every minor misdemeanour.
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 12:24 AMJackie McDonald?
What a pathetic wanker . The “peoples guns” don’t make me sick. Mind you , with leaderhip like his the UDA/UPRG won;t go too far politically , unfortunately some loyalist communities will continue to suffer.
The uDA hardly need guns to continue their thuggery and violence. As far as I can see, empty meaningless words
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 08:35 AMUDA Unlimited. Drugs. Available
UFF Ulster’s. Fallicious. Freaks
Enough said
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 10:12 AM“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.”
Mark Haddock, Brian Nelson, William Stobie I dont think any of these can be considered low level. Haddock alone was implicated in 15 murders by the ombudsman while working as an informant.
In fact it makes you wonder did loyalists ever carry out a single act of violence that wasn’t orchastrated either directly or indirectly by the state. Also the definition of collusion as defined by Judge Cory is not just assisting a terrorist by providing information but failing to properly investigate or bring those responsible to justice in the aftermath.Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 11:49 AMJust heard Suzanne Breen’s contribution to Talk Back.
She reminded us that Ulster Defence Association is a misnomer. They actually went on the offensive long before the IRA became active again.
They’re terrorists plain and simple and should be treated as the bottom feeders they are.
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 12:14 PMSuzanne Breen’s confusing the “UVF” and the “UDA”. The “UDA” was formed after the Provos.
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 01:08 PMWillowfield,
No doubt you’re right. Was it the UVF she was referring to, formed in 1966? Those courageous chaps who murdered a barman because he
had refused to serve the drunken fuckswas a Roman Catholic?But here’s the funny thing. Having read your post I at once googled “UDA”, only to find this site. Yep, fishes of all description, and fish supplies. Here’s a quote from their range:
“Turbo Snails, Underworld, Vecton, Visitherm, Waterlife, Whisper.”
So when I referred to “our” UDA as “bottom feeders” I wasn’t a million miles away from the truth :0)
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 01:58 PMIf the UDA’s guns are the people’s guns, I want to put first claim in on a Minigun (if they have one). I always wanted to that stunt that Arnie does at the Cyberdine Systems laboratory in Terminator 2.
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 02:09 PMSammy Morse: “If the UDA’s guns are the people’s guns, I want to put first claim in on a Minigun (if they have one). I always wanted to that stunt that Arnie does at the Cyberdine Systems laboratory in Terminator 2. “
*shudders*
That’s just a collection of thoughts I wish I didn’t own—the UFF with a minigun and, then, Sammy with a minigun…
Just make sure you have a couple of medics handy… the only multi-barrelled, man-portable (well, two man portable) weapon is the XM214 minigun, weighing it at 85 lbs. The Six-Pak consisted of the XM214, the ammunition package, and the power module, and the ammunition module consisted of two 500 round cassettes mounted to a holding rack. Linked ammunition was fed through a flexible chute to the gun; when the first cassette was empty, ammunition would then feed from the second cassette, tripping a visible signal that a new cassette needed to be added to the rack. The power module contained a 24 volt nickel-cadmium battery, a 0.8 horsepower motor, and solid state electronic controls.
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 09:55 PMDude, you know waaaay too much about miniguns.
Sammy with a minigun…
I thought you were one of those pro-gun, Robert A Heinlein reading, libertarian types who used lines like “I’m intensely relaxed about married gay couples with closets full of assault rifles”?
Although, obviously not the UDA.
Posted by on Nov 12, 2007 @ 11:13 PMSammy Morse: “I thought you were one of those pro-gun, Robert A Heinlein reading, libertarian types who used lines like “I’m intensely relaxed about married gay couples with closets full of assault rifles”? “
Oh, I am… but even *I* have a sense of proportion, not to mention a healthy sense of self-preservation. That minigun can be used for logging and urban renewal, assuming that no one important (i.e. with a pulse) is down-range when you decide you need some timber. Now, if you wanted to play with it from a pintle-mount or tripod, with plenty of safe down-range territory and under adult supervision, by all means, play on.
As for Heinlein…
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
Robert A. HeinleinPosted by on Nov 13, 2007 @ 01:22 AMI actually thought Robert Heinlein was a good author, he had some interesting, if completely unworkable, ideas. I was lucky enough to have read Starship Troopers before I saw the abomination of a movie and I kinda liked the idea of people having to earn their vote as I’ve always saw the main flaw of democracy being that every muppet gets a say.
Posted by on Nov 13, 2007 @ 11:14 AMHeinlein gets a bad rap mainly because he presents such dangerous notions as a need for folks to be personally responsible, self-reliant, etc.
The movie entitled “Starship Troopers” was, in essence, some Hollywood liberal weenie’s “reaction” to the novel “Starship Troopers.”
Hell, we’re lucky the poncing little twit didn’t write up a treatment sympathetic to the Bugs.
Posted by on Nov 13, 2007 @ 03:27 PMDC
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
I’m sorry, but who doesn’t believe that some sort of “control” is necessary?
For example, who is against the idea that society should infringe, in draconian fashion, on the individual’s right to murder?
Heinlein’s little phrase is rhetorically appealing but ultimately, intellectually vacuous. Clearly our disputes are not over the fact of societal/state/legal control, but over the extent of it.
And clearly, no meaningful truth can be conveyed in a single, neat sentence.
Posted by on Nov 13, 2007 @ 09:33 PMBilly Pilgrim: “I’m sorry, but who doesn’t believe that some sort of “control” is necessary? “
Ah, but we’re not talking about reasonable limits, we’re talking honest control. Y’know, police cameras every 15 feet, watching the guilty and the innocent, with little real utility with regard to law enforcement. We’re talking the disarmament of law-abiding citizens to the benefit of armed thugs. A controlling nanny-state that wants to regulate what we eat, what and where we can and can’t smoke and interfere with the minutiae of our lives.
Billy Pilgrim: “For example, who is against the idea that society should infringe, in draconian fashion, on the individual’s right to murder?”
Please, is that the best you can do, Billy? Do not confuse societal standards that arise almost universally, from enlightened self-interest if nothing else, with an unwarranted intrusion into one’s life.
Billy Pilgrim: “Clearly our disputes are not over the fact of societal/state/legal control, but over the extent of it. “
Only because you allow yourself to be ensnared in the trappings and table-settings. The state should exist to serve the people, not the other way about. The UK’s nanny-state does little to serve the individual, instead substituting a socialistic pablum that imposes control upon the population—the cameras, the disarmament of the law-abiding to the ultimate benefit of the criminal, the payment of monies to criminals for injuries incurred in the course of their crimes, etc.
Posted by on Nov 13, 2007 @ 10:17 PMDC
The question is, at what point do ‘reasonable limits’ stop being reasonable and become ‘honest control’. You have one view of where that point lies, I have another, and in truth, on the scale from total anarchy to total control, we’re probably not that far apart.
Everyone’s view on where that point lies is different and it’s why all-or-nothing statements like Heinlein’s are, quite frankly, nothing more than meaningless sound-bites.
Posted by on Nov 14, 2007 @ 01:14 PMSdB: “Everyone’s view on where that point lies is different and it’s why all-or-nothing statements like Heinlein’s are, quite frankly, nothing more than meaningless sound-bites.”
On the contrary, it is necessary to present the “all or nothing” position to shake-up the serfs and make them think—wake them up, get them to poke their heads out of their gopher holes and take a look around.
For example, were you to poll Americans, I fear most would subscribe to the notion that the monies removed from their pay-check in witholding tax is “the government’s money,” which, frankly, is drivel. That money is earned by the worker and extracted from the worker by the government. Witholding schemes have allowed government to grow far beyond the point of diminishing returns because it lessens the sting of paying tax.
A touch of hyperbole and a dash of the dramatic is needed to slap the serfs out of their lethargy and make them realize just how badly they’ve been bamboozled.
Posted by on Nov 14, 2007 @ 01:42 PMNATIONALISTS REMAIN AT RISK FROM LOYALIST DEATH SQUADS – RSF
Republican Sinn FĂ©in has warned that, despite a recent statement from the UDA, Nationalists remain at risk from Loyalist death squads. Richard Walsh, Publicity Officer, stated that: “The recent statement from the UDA regarding its future intentions clearly emanates from Provo calls for complete collaboration with the British forces of occupation. Their efforts to promote the RUC have led a section of the Loyalist community to believe that the maintenance of their death squads is not currently necessary.
“However, the retention of weaponry under UDA/UFF control demonstrates that these British-backed death squads can be reactivated as and when deemed necessary by their masters. Hence Nationalists inevitably remain at risk. Indeed two of our members in County Armagh were informed as recently as three months ago that their lives were under threat from an unspecified Loyalist organisation.”
He added that the interests of all the Irish people would best be protected through the adoption of the ÉIRE NUA proposals within the context of a free Ireland.
He said that “We in Republican Sinn FĂ©in will not seek to dissociate ourselves from the ideals of the 1916 Proclamation, namely the ‘right of the Irish people to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible.’ Present-day Unionists must come to realise that their interests are best served through a federation of the four Irish Provinces, free from all foreign interference. Republican Sinn FĂ©in’s ÉIRE NUA programme provides for maximum decentralisation of power to local communities.”
Posted by on Nov 14, 2007 @ 07:21 PMI haven’t had an opportunity to comment on the Remembrance Sunday statement read out by Colin Halliday, which was then followed up on by Jackie McDonald.
I thought it was carefully worded, progressive and looking to the future without forgetting the sacrifice of the men and women who fought and died in the conflict to protect our community from the scourge of violent Republican bigotry.
I don’t want this to be viewed as a defiant glorification of the UFF so I’ll leave it there, my thoughts on the need for Loyalism to have an organised cutting edge in response to Republican attacks is well known and I don’t need to elaborate.
I’m 22 years of age now and I’m sick to the back teeth of it all now, i.e. the blind hatred and sectarianism. Currently at University I have more Roman Catholic mates on my football team than Prod mates. Their personalities relate more to mine than some of the other dour bastards on our side from both backgrounds - I’m not going to choose boring Prods/Taigs to hang about with and go out drinking with over Prods/Taigs who are a better laugh.
Basically what I’m saying is this through all the waffle. Take the UDA’s standing down of their “cutting edge” as a sign that our community might not feel entirely comfortable with the whole situation; we are deeply concerned with the brutal murder of Paul Quinn and the attempted murders of serving PSNI officers, but we are confident enough in the future that we don’t need the Ulster Freedom Fighters to fight the IRA. Surely this should be viewed as a stepping stone to a true and lasting peace.
Maybe one day in the future I’ll be able to go to my footie mates’ homes in the Poleglass and Glen Road areas of West Belfast or Newry City without feeling my heart pounding because of my faith...surely that’s not much to ask, is it?Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 01:35 AMMethinks you’re talking through your hole! I apologise for the crudeness but it’s what is needed for this Walter Mitty. Name names of your ex-paramilitary pals to prove me wrong. I have no doubt a brainwashed bigot like yourself counts ex-Provos as their muckers, but to say you’re mates with ex-Uvfers is stretching the truth beyond credibility because no Loyalist worth his salt would want anything to do with a sectarian extremist like you…
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 01:55 AMMy 1:55am post was in response to this rubbish:
joe,
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 lib2016 on Nov 11, 2007 @ 08:20 PM
Posted by on Nov 17, 2007 @ 01:59 AMconcerned loyalist, remind me how the uff fought the IRA? is targeting ipeople because of their religion fighting your enemy? and those unionists who claim the loyalist violencce was only ever eactionary can cut the bull as well, it is documented fact that unionists/loyalists started the ‘troubles’. you cannot argue against fact. remeber bombay st, remember the taunts of I Ran Away, regarding the absence of the IRA to protect nationalist homes from colonist/loyalist/unionist attacks. oh and the irish have a right to claim that republican violence was reactionary, after all we didn’t pick the fight with you, it was the other way round, as you would know if you were in any way educated.
Posted by on Nov 20, 2007 @ 02:15 PM‘Death Squads’ are defined as pro-govt groups who engage in ‘extra-judicial’ killings of people they define as enemies of the state. In Northern Ireland there are many people, esp British and their allies, who reject the idea that there are ‘death squads’ in Northern Ireland, and certainly not like those in Latin America.To refer to ‘death squads’ in North of Ireland is seen as evidence that the speaker is biased against Britain and Ulster Protestants. The fact is that the Loyalist gangs fit the definition to a tee. the media has called world attention to the use of such state terror in many contemporary Third World countries,in Northern Ireland the perception of collaboration between government and terror groups does not exist because the British govt has a system of direct control, through its military and intelligence services, of the Loyalist paramilitaries who direct the murder against the civilian natives.
Posted by on Nov 20, 2007 @ 02:21 PM
