Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Shoukris reject UDA expulsion call
The UTV website is reporting a statement in response to yesterday’s statement from the UDA expelling Andre and Ihab Shoukri. Which provides an answer to the question posed at the end of this assessment of the situation by the BBC’s Vincent Kearney.. to which I’ll just add the two items I noted in the comments on the previous thread - the comments of Judge Burgess at the trial of Ihab Shoukri on the dropping of UDA/UFF membership charges.. and the reported forthcoming meeting between another UDA leader and the President of the Republic of Ireland.
Pete Baker @ 12:10 PM
We should brace ourselves for another round of blood letting.
When thieves fall out…..
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 01:32 PMheres hoping
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 01:39 PMAre we to suppose that now that the North Belfast Brigade have confirmed their membership of an outlawed organisation, that the PSNI will now rearrest them and a successful prosecution will follow?
I’ll not hold my breath - I suspect their former colleagues will deal out the only justice they understand.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 01:41 PMhh
Agreed.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 01:42 PMLoyalist,
Are you suggesting that you want to see terrorist murders take place? I thought I remembered you posting before on the upholding of law and order.
Surely a peaceful parting of the ways would be better, as it would avoid deaths, and make it easier for the PSNI to concentrate on taking down these weakened criminal gangs one at a time if they do not cease their activities.I suspect however that there will be another feud, although it’s possible that this could be bluster from supporters of those expelled, and that the resolve would melt in the face of serious confrontation the way the Shankill people’s did.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 01:48 PMIt would appear that the Troon Brigade of the UDA may be about to swell it’s members. God help the (real) Scots!
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 01:53 PMI am sure that the genuine members of North Belfast will see sense and acquiesce to the call of the Inner Council. History suggests a round of bloodletting but we are in a new era and behind the scenes discussions will hopefully avoid any problems.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 01:59 PMAll this is making me quite nostalgic to watch “My Darling Clementine” once again. But this time with Andre, Henry Fonda like, in the role of Wyatt Earp and Ihab as Virgil. But who will play their ally Doc Holliday? It was Victor Mature in the original so that might help with casting decicions. Ike, the leader of the Clanton gang, was played by Walter Brennan in the original. The question is, can Jackie McDonald step into Walter’s boots? John Ford was in charge of direction last time. I wonder who is doing the directing on this one.
Then, as the gunsmoke clears at the Not-so-OK Corral, who will be left standing? In Tombstone the control of gambling, drinking and whoring was at stake and it was winner take all. High stakes to play for, pardner, and only one last roll of the dice.
Coming soon to a drinking den or massage parlour near you!!!
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 02:09 PMI thought that at the time of the Adair expulsion Andre was to be the saviour of the UDA in North Belfast area. That he would be the new face of the UDA and be at variance to the old regime supported at that time by Adair from his West Belfast bolthole.
I distinctly remember the senior UPRG spokesperson Sammy Duddy saying as much and comparing the ‘tall’, ‘good looking’ (apparently) Andre with the small, squat and ugly Adair.So it seems that the UPRG called that one wrong. A point for unionists to consider is that the problem is not who leads the UDA in any particular area but the UDA itself.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 02:44 PMI dying to know if a genuine member is one without the fake tan and steroids?
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 02:52 PMGaribaldy
“Are you suggesting that you want to see terrorist murders take place?”
I’m pretty sure there aren’t many people that want to see terrorist murder taking place in NI.
BUTTT, if loyalists want to have another go at each other, then so be it. A few less loyalist criminals isn’t going to matter.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 02:57 PMMickaline,
You can bet you’re bottom dollar that if another feud kicks off Gerry Kelly will be on the TV saying something like ‘I’m calling on nationalists to be increasingly vigilant as history tells us the way loyalists try and band together is by killing Catholics.’
He says it every time. I think it’s not necessarily 100% accurate, but it does point out a danger that any violence has the potential to spill over. So a few less loyalist criminals might well matter.
It’s said one third of people killed in the troubles were killed in a mile triangle, much of it in north Belfast. Many of the sectarian murders and attacks since the ceasefires in 1994 have been in North Belfast, carried out by the north Belfast and south east Antrim UDA. If one of these groups, silently abetted perhaps by elements of the other if the media is to be believed, breaks away, then that might be very destabilising over the summer, particularly given that the Whitewell Road has been such a flashpoint, as well as areas like Ligoneil etc.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 03:05 PMThe idea of getting these guys in a big field and having a wild west style shoot out is appealing but unfortunately thats not how it works. Usually these feuds result in the death and injury of innocent people. The last time there was a feud a guy who had the misfortune to resemble someone else was walking his dog down the Crumlin Road when he was blasted in the face with a shotgun. The poor guy was left permanently blinded.
Is it any wonder so much unionist north Belfast is in ruins when these goons are running amok?
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 03:27 PMAs with all wars, when there is an end to military action the paramilitaries who provided criminal money during the conflict are abandoned by the political wings.
The moderate side of the UDA/UVF must either break from those engaged in criminality, or assimilate into the political wing of Loyalism.
David Irvine should be encouraged and offered help in isolating those who wish to remain involved in criminality.
The criminals on both sides of the divide must be told in no uncertain terms:
“Thank-you for your help during the war, but now you must join other conventional criminals and take your chance against the system, employing top lawyers as other criminals do to try and beat the wrap, the days of hiding behind a political ideal to justify criminality are over for good”
The UDA/UVF if it wants to remain in existence must take this action now!!
The only other alternative is for law abiding UDA/UVF members to join one of the mainstream political parties, or form a law abbiding new version of UDA/UVF.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 03:37 PMThe loyalist paramilitaries were tools of the British government. Before any experienced workman (and in these matters the British have experience right round the world) leaves his work he tidies his tools away.
Nothing to get get excited about here. Just the end of one shift and the beginning of another.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 03:46 PMlaw abiding UDA/UVF….surely an oxymoron if i ever saw one
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 03:54 PMLoftholdingswood: “I am sure that the genuine members of North Belfast will see sense and acquiesce to the call of the Inner Council. History suggests a round of bloodletting but we are in a new era and behind the scenes discussions will hopefully avoid any problems. “
Right… just like the last several “personnel issues” the UDA has had in the last year or so. Not hoping you’re wrong, just not holding much hope.
Turbo Paul: “As with all wars, when there is an end to military action the paramilitaries who provided criminal money during the conflict are abandoned by the political wings. “
Actually, you are lumping about three problems in together. In any “revolutionary group,” you end up with a couple strata—the politico / true believers, the opportunists and the Neandrathals. At the end, assuming at least a push, the politicos go into politics, the opportunists stay in crime and both worry about the killers. Demobilizing weapons is the easy part. What do you do with the warriors once the war is over? PIRA has done all three, but had a strong connection to SF. Hopefully, the bulk will go into politics / normal life. The Loyalists never had a strong bond to politics but didn’t really need one, since they went a-thuggin’ for the status quo. Whether PUP abandoned the UVF or simply acknowledged diverging paths is open to discussion. The UDA’s political wing is minimal. Beyond that, both Loyalist and Republican, the politicos are thin and few at best. The problem(s) are more complicated than you present them.
The Loyalists were, arguable, an extension of the UK’s “countergang” strategy, as deployed in Kenya and the Middle East prior to the Troubles.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 04:02 PMAnyone within the UDA/UVF, PIRA, CIRA, RIRA, who has not been convicted of a crime or even with a criminal record, but wants to honestly lobby for their respective cause, should be encouraged and offered a forum to do this lawfully.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 04:05 PMI’m not so sure that the men who provided the bankroll are, at the end of all conflicts, abandoned by the politicos. Stalin bankrolled the Bolsheviks through bank robbery and Trotsky condemned the methods he used for raising the funds but we know to whom the politicos gave the heave-ho in the end. But maybe that was because Stalin had the better moustache.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 04:22 PMTurbo Paul,
I agree with you and thank you for your comments.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 04:26 PMRory, the determining factor is that Trotsky, for all his failings, was an idealist and Stalin was a sociopath.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 04:46 PMOn what basis Dread are you suggesting that Stalin was a sociopath? And on what basis are you suggesting that he wasn’t motivated by ideas? It’s not Animal Farm is it?
I think that Stalin won the power struggle because he had the confidence of the Party and the people and because his was the correct position for addressing the realities of the USSR in the 1920s, whereas Trotsky was a blow-in to the Bolshevik party, and lived in cloud cuckoo land.
Trotsky was nuts, and Trotskyism is an ideology for the mentally unstable. Hence its abject failure absolutely everywhere. Even that madman Pol Pot could successfully form a revolutionary movement - Trotsky and troskyism could not.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 05:04 PMGaribaldy: “On what basis Dread are you suggesting that Stalin was a sociopath? And on what basis are you suggesting that he wasn’t motivated by ideas? It’s not Animal Farm is it? “
No. Just look at his history, his words—“one man’s death is a tragedy, a million dead a statistic?” He was definately paranoid, hence the various purges of the Soviet military, leaving him with no political competition, but few competant military leaders. He certainly seemed to think the world danced on his string, hence his denial of the obvious preparations by Germany for Operation Barbarossa, including openly massing troops and high altitude incursions by Folke-Wulf reconaissance aircraft and his subsequent mental paralysis in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. We can quibble about what sort of socially abnormal paranoid meglomaniac he was, but he certainly wasn’t playing with a full deck of cards.
And what gives you the notion that sociopaths don’t have ideas? Their problem is a lack of empathy, not intellect. Psychopaths are the ones who lack control, not sociopaths.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 05:12 PMI’ve always taken that quote about a statistic to be a comment on how people react to tragedy. We can react to one death at an emotional level, but 1 million deaths is too big a concept to deal with in that way.
On the paranoia. Perhaps you’ll appreciate this quote from Kissinger, that even paranoids have enemies. The fact of the matter is that had any of Stalin’s enemies from the left or right succeeded he, and a great many others, would have been executed. Read Trotsky’s correspondence and it’s quite clear that there were numerous Trotskist plots active within the USSR. Not to mention the spying and activities of the capitalist powers, who after all had sent numerous armies to try and defeat the Bolsheviks.
So there was a history and a very real possibility of coups, plots etc. Taking action against them isn’t paranoia.On the German thing. I think Stalin knew fine rightly war was inevitable, hence the Polish deal, so it would start as far west as possible. This is a major reason why the army was thoroghly purged. Couldn’t have these people betraying the country in war. Clearly preparations were being made - all the industry just didn’t move itself so quickly, and the T-34 was designed and sent into mass production for a reason.
On the ideas point, you said the difference was Trotsky was an idealist, Stalin a sociopath. Suggesting Stalin wasn’t an idealist. I’d say be was motivated by ideology just as much as Trotsky. After all, the USSR during the period of his leadership transformed itself in an idealistic crusade to create a better future for the whole of humankind. And it had huge successes.
On the whole, I prefer to exercise my own judgment when it comes to Soviet history, ignoring the bias of the vast majority of the book on it, looking at things from the perspective of the Soviets and avoiding simplistic solutions that attribute devil-like influence and abilities to a single man. Even one as great, and sometimes as flawed, as Uncle Joe.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 05:28 PMGaribaldy: “On the paranoia. Perhaps you’ll appreciate this quote from Kissinger, that even paranoids have enemies. “
True, but 1,000,000+ enemies? This is the most conservative is 1,000,000, using the most restrictive definition, the most “liberal” being 100,000,000, based on the notion of any and all who died of an unnatural death during Stalin’s reign. This million doesn’t include the Ukrainians who were starved, or the Kulaks who were killed, etc. These are the strictly political deaths. After the first couple thousand, its paranoia, Garibaldy.
Garibaldy: “On the German thing. I think Stalin knew fine rightly war was inevitable, hence the Polish deal, so it would start as far west as possible. This is a major reason why the army was thoroghly purged. Couldn’t have these people betraying the country in war. Clearly preparations were being made - all the industry just didn’t move itself so quickly, and the T-34 was designed and sent into mass production for a reason. “
Ah, but his denial that the Germans would invade when the did, despite the overwhelming evidence from his and other intelligence services, suggests a level of denial beyond the reasonable. I am not saying he didn’t think the Germans would turn on him. I’m saying he thought the Germans would turn on him when he wanted them to. Why else his mental incapacity following the Nazi invasion? Likewise, his purges left the Soviet army leaderless. Were it not for a late start, due to Hitler having to bail his fellow fascist out of his Greek adventure and a truly impressive display by General Winter, Stalin’s detachment from reality could have led to an early end to the Russian Front, as there was literally almost no one capable of picking up the reins of power, should Moscow have fallen to the Germans.
Garibaldy: “On the ideas point, you said the difference was Trotsky was an idealist, Stalin a sociopath. Suggesting Stalin wasn’t an idealist. I’d say be was motivated by ideology just as much as Trotsky. After all, the USSR during the period of his leadership transformed itself in an idealistic crusade to create a better future for the whole of humankind. And it had huge successes. “
Right… and the Berlin Wall was built to keep all the desperate Western capitalists out of the worker’s paradise… and no one starved in the Ukraine… and only bad folks got sent to the gulags…
Garibaldy: “On the whole, I prefer to exercise my own judgment when it comes to Soviet history, ignoring the bias of the vast majority of the book on it, looking at things from the perspective of the Soviets and avoiding simplistic solutions that attribute devil-like influence and abilities to a single man. Even one as great, and sometimes as flawed, as Uncle Joe. “
Post WW2, perhaps—something about losing that many people will effect the psychology of a whole nation. However, Stalin was not a stable personality. We can debate the exact of his particular psychological condition, but he was a little more than “flawed.” Womanizing is a flaw. Corruption is a flaw. I’ll go so far as to say an addictive personality is a flaw. Killing millions of your own people is a little more than a simple “flaw,” Garibaldy. The starvation of the Ukraine, the effort against the Kulaks, the folly of the Winter War with Finland, etc. These are not the actions of a healthy, balanced psyche.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 06:39 PM
