Do you consider the term Volunteer a term that glorifies the IRA

sligobhoy67

or a descriptive term for a member of a republican organisation.

brianthebard

Volunteer as in Irish Volunteer Force, as in armed militia that existed before the IRA? If the IRA were to use it in their propaganda enough then their supporters would start to equate the two but I don't see how it glorifies the ira. Can I have more details please, what exactly is the issue?

sligobhoy67

brianthebard wrote:

Volunteer as in Irish Volunteer Force, as in armed militia that existed before the IRA? If the IRA were to use it in their propaganda enough then their supporters would start to equate the two but I don't see how it glorifies the ira. Can I have more details please, what exactly is the issue?

Well there is a discussion that if you describe a member of the IRA/INLA etc a Volunteer implies sympathy and that you should only use the term "member of the IRa etc - I disagreed and said it was simply a descriptive term, grant more commonly used within pro republican media, but does not imply a point of view.

well I just think it is a descriptive term especially as it is used widely within the media.

mike65

Its only 'offence' to the make the act of joining an murderous organisation slightly 'benign'

NGO chap - 'I volunteered to help save children in Sudan' IRA chap 'I volunteered to kill children in Manchester'

Mike.

A Dub in Glasgo

mike65 wrote:

Its only 'offence' to the make the act of joining an murderous organisation slightly 'benign'

Does that work with Private, Captain, Sergent etc as well?

---

Volunteer is the way of describing members of the IRA (all variations) without rank. It is not a recent description and was probably used as a way of clearly identifying those who volunteered to fight for Irish Independence and those that volunteered to fight in an imperialist war.

mike65

They are terms explicitly used within military structures there is no assumption or sugestion of a benign aspect (though a military man may use his postion or power in a "soft" fashion).

Mike.

murphaph

I'm with Mike. It implies more than mere membership of an illegal organisation. The media should stick to 'member' as in member of a criminal gang etc.

A Dub in Glasgo

No great surprise there

murphaph

Touche. But of course I wouldn't see anyone volunteering to overthrow the democratic govt of my country as a positive.

Jackie laughlin

The IRA/SF and other so-called nationalists and republicans are masters of the use of terminology. George Orwell would have a field day analysing their use of language. "Volunteer" is just one example. "Defend", "Execute", "Army" are a few others and I can supply a long, long list. Media must be very careful. Choosing a word means taking sides. The finest achievement of SF/IRA is the term "peace process", an oxymoron which implies a threat and two governments along with all of the media go along with it.

ghostdancer

No, a descriptive term for someone who volunteers for something is a Volunteer.

we seem to have no problem using it to describe the people who murdered apparently in our name back in 1916, so I don't seen any problem with using it for those who did similar up until the mid-90's.


anything else before we descend into the usual level of sh1t-talk from the ususal lot?

brianthebard

sligobhoy67 wrote:

Well there is a discussion that if you describe a member of the IRA/INLA etc a Volunteer implies sympathy and that you should only use the term "member of the IRa etc - I disagreed and said it was simply a descriptive term, grant more commonly used within pro republican media, but does not imply a point of view.

well I just think it is a descriptive term especially as it is used widely within the media.

That's kind of interesting I've thought about this type of issue before. In one of Salman Rushdie's book he talks about terrorists vs freedom fighters. Obviously to a "freedom fighter" would not like to be called a "terrorist" and those who use the term "terrorist" would not approve of someone from their side(in this case the west generally) calling them "freedom fighter". What it boils down to in that not matter what a lot of the time words we pick to describe issues like this are politically charged and if a journalist is to pick the word volunteer over terrorist or vice versa there is a corresponding meaning. What I think is most interesting is attempting to use these words in a neutral statement. That's the hardest thing of all.

ressem

Volunteer, as opposed to conscript is a term used in military structures also. So it's not surprising that pseudo military gangs appropriate it when it suits.
That probably means that holding a family hostage for the purposes of proxy bombing is conscripting in their eyes.

It's just a word, which due to the actions of the better parts of our society, has a positive connotation that the word doesn't actually describe.

So it's up to the listener to know or learn about the specifics. Who knows, amidst all those psychos in the IRA that abuse and polarize their community, there's probably some recruits that had the best of intentions.

sligobhoy67

mike65 wrote:

Its only 'offence' to the make the act of joining an murderous organisation slightly 'benign'

NGO chap - 'I volunteered to help save children in Sudan' IRA chap 'I volunteered to kill children in Manchester'

Mike.

so would disagree with the likes of Martin Savage, Michael Collins or Liam Lynch being described as Vol. Martin Savage, Collins etc or just Bobby Sands, Declan Arthurs, Mairéad Farrell or Séamus McElwaine?

murphaph

ghostdancer wrote:

we seem to have no problem using it to describe the people who murdered apparently in our name back in 1916, so I don't seen any problem with using it for those who did similar up until the mid-90's.

I don't refer to the insurgents of 1916 as Volunteers and they didn't cause the deaths of a couple hundred of my fellow dubliners in my name (I know you used the word 'apparently' to qualify).

ghostdancer wrote:

anything else before we descend into the usual level of sh1t-talk from the ususal lot?

You are of course free not to look at this thread.

Sand

Yep, and its a fairly misleading term given that the IRA would not immediately leap to mind when thinking of voluntary organisations, as Mike demonstrated. Theres a Volunteerism board here, but its not a hotbed of hardcore irish republicans afaik.

More accurate terms would be "member of the PIRA", "criminal", "terrorist", "murderer" or "Sinn Fein activist"

Its understandable the Provos would seek to pretend theyre great lads all the same, but it doesnt mean anyone else has to buy into the delusion.

Obviously to a "freedom fighter" would not like to be called a "terrorist" and those who use the term "terrorist" would not approve of someone from their side(in this case the west generally) calling them "freedom fighter".

Theres been a long tradition of attempting to blur objective reality in language. As you say, people sympathetic to certain groups might describe them as freedom fighters while their victims call them terrorists. To these people freedom fighter = "good, justified" and terrorist = "bad, monstrous".

The question is does terrorist mean anything outside of that "bad, monstrous" slur? Does it mean a group or person that commits terrorist acts? Are terrorist acts better defined as anything that startles or scares someone, or as a premeditated and deliberate attack on civillians as opposed to military targets? I personally try to differentiate between guerilla (freedom fighter?) groups and terrorist groups, based on their policy of attacks against civillians. The IRA would clearly fall into the second camp given the planned nature of their bombings and murders.

sligobhoy67

Sand wrote:

Yep, and its a fairly misleading term given that the IRA would not immediately leap to mind when thinking of voluntary organisations, as Mike demonstrated. Theres a Volunteerism board here, but its not a hotbed of hardcore irish republicans afaik.

More accurate terms would be "member of the PIRA", "criminal", "terrorist", "murderer" or "Sinn Fein activist"

Its understandable the Provos would seek to pretend theyre great lads all the same, but it doesnt mean anyone else has to buy into the delusion.



Theres been a long tradition of attempting to blur objective reality in language. As you say, people sympathetic to certain groups might describe them as freedom fighters while their victims call them terrorists. To these people freedom fighter = "good, justified" and terrorist = "bad, monstrous".

The question is does terrorist mean anything outside of that "bad, monstrous" slur? Does it mean a group or person that commits terrorist acts? Are terrorist acts better defined as anything that startles or scares someone, or as a premeditated and deliberate attack on civillians as opposed to military targets? I personally try to differentiate between guerilla (freedom fighter?) groups and terrorist groups, based on their policy of attacks against civillians. The IRA would clearly fall into the second camp given the planned nature of their bombings and murders.

thats bull imo opinion - IRA does not have a policy of attacking civillians.

Anyway you are going to drag the thread off topic with talk like that.

Most gravestones of republicans have Vol. XXX XXXX on them and the term is used by many sources not just republicans

brianthebard

I think the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter largely comes down to the end result of their actions-Irish republicans who fought in the war of independance are not considered terrorists, because they won the war. But at the time the British certainly thought of them as such.

I understand what you are saying about seperating guerilla groups and terrorists but I again think that comes down to point of view. Che Guevara's guerilla activities in Bolivia are largely considered terrorism, even though there were (afaik) no civilian casualitie as a result of his groups actions. There were times when civilians were captured or provisions commandeered from them-but whether that makes them more or less of a terrorist group is hard to say.

Macmorris

sligobhoy67 wrote:

Most gravestones of republicans have Vol. XXX XXXX on them and the term is used by many sources not just republicans

Who are these many sources you talk about? I don't think I've ever heard anyone outside the republican movement ever refer to a member of the IRA as a 'Volunteer'.

sligobhoy67

Macmorris wrote:

Who are these many sources you talk about? I don't think I've ever heard anyone outside the republican movement ever refer to a member of the IRA as a 'Volunteer'.

really!?

The term is widely used by

- pro republican

http://republican-news.org/archive/2003/March20/20keit.html http://larkspirit.com/hungerstrikes/bios/mccreesh.html http://www.sinnfein.ie/history

- anti republican
http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?date=5/2/2003&seq=1 http://www.victims.org.uk/18-10-04b.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15793337&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=ira-gives-up-its-arms--there-is-a-time-for-peace---there-is-a-time-for-justice--this-is-that-time-name_page.html http://www.nesa.org.uk/latest_issue/ira-hon.htm http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/ulster_nationalism%20an%20IRA%20view.htm

and neutral sources such as

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=938215&issue_id=8915 http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/06/25/ihead_36.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1469627,00.html http://www.birw.org/bsireports/100_120/report109.html http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1015322004 http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/031005/f031005_02.htm

monument

Coming soon to this thread…

Denials that people have been charged in Irish courts for membership of the IRA otherwise the Irish Republican Army, otherwise, Oglaigh na hEireann.

Screening on this thread right now...

Denials that the 1916 was a bloody, undemocratic, and unlawful act.

A strange idea that volunteering is negative or positive.... if you think some one is a scum bag or a hero, it's because of their actions not the way they signed up... in saying all that 'member' is the safer term for the media to use.

Macmorris

sligobhoy67 wrote:

really!?

The term is widely used by

- pro republican

http://republican-news.org/archive/2003/March20/20keit.html http://larkspirit.com/hungerstrikes/bios/mccreesh.html http://www.sinnfein.ie/history

- anti republican
http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?date=5/2/2003&seq=1 http://www.victims.org.uk/18-10-04b.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15793337&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=ira-gives-up-its-arms--there-is-a-time-for-peace---there-is-a-time-for-justice--this-is-that-time-name_page.html http://www.nesa.org.uk/latest_issue/ira-hon.htm http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/ulster_nationalism%20an%20IRA%20view.htm

and neutral sources such as

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=938215&issue_id=8915 http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1999/06/25/ihead_36.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1469627,00.html http://www.birw.org/bsireports/100_120/report109.html http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1015322004 http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/031005/f031005_02.htm

Alright, so it is more common than I thought, which is surprising because it's the kind of thing I thought I would have noticed before.

I still don't think it's as widely used in the mainstream media as you would like to think though. I would be very surprised to hear anyone or RTE or BBC use the word 'Volunteer' when referring to the IRA.

Why do you limit it as well to members of the IRA? Why not include members of loyalist groups? Try typing 'UVF Volunteer' or 'UDA Volunteer' into google and see how many results come up.

wow sierra

I am still amused/amazed by the simplistic black and white attitude some people who have never as much as visited the North, let alone have had to live there under majority rule since partition, have towards the Provisional Ira. I am not saying I necessesarily condone any or all of the actions of the PIRA but I would appeal to people to aquaint themselves with the Political and Social context.

UVF Volunteer ie Ulster Volunteer Force Volunteer !!!! I rest my case - please aquaint yourself with the politics or Northern Ireland.

sligobhoy67

Macmorris wrote:

Alright, so it is more common than I thought, which is surprising because it's the kind of thing I thought I would have noticed before.

I still don't think it's as widely used in the mainstream media as you would like to think though. I would be very surprised to hear anyone or RTE or BBC use the word 'Volunteer' when referring to the IRA.

Why do you limit it as well to members of the IRA? Why not include members of loyalist groups? Try typing 'UVF Volunteer' or 'UDA Volunteer' into google and see how many results come up.

you mean like

here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1695901.stm here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/380172.stm and here http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/reconciliation/support/rec1_c043.shtml but it seems that it Ireland the media avoid the term and the only reference I could find was this one http://www.rte.ie/arts/2006/0531/sheehanw.html

Sand

I still don't think it's as widely used in the mainstream media as you would like to think though. I would be very surprised to hear anyone or RTE or BBC use the word 'Volunteer' when referring to the IRA.

It isnt, take a look at that ivanfoster link in the anti-republican links sligo helpfully provided. The only use of "volunteer" in that article is from what appears to be a copy and paste from another article by Sean O Callaghan, a member of the IRA where he claims Pat Finucane was a "volunteer", and seeing as hes IRA it doesnt disprove that only Provos and fellow travellers refer to themselves as volunteers. Certainly doesnt prove that anti republicans use the term, though interestingly that link does describe loyalist terrorist groups as terrorists.

My guess is sligo typed "IRA Volunteer" into a search engine and grouped the results. Probably didnt examine or view any of the links. I cant be bothered filtering through them for his evidence if he cant.

thats bull imo opinion - IRA does not have a policy of attacking civillians.

Flat earth society strikes again.

sligobhoy67

Sand wrote:

My guess is .............. I cant be bothered filtering through them for his evidence

no problem Mr. McDowell!

aidan24326

sligobhoy67 wrote:

thats bull imo opinion - IRA does not have a policy of attacking civillians.

Really? Tell that to the families of all those they murdered over the years. It may not have been 'policy', but when you plant a bomb it's almost inevitable that civilians will get killed/maimed in the process. Saying sh1t like 'it wasn't policy...' is typical of how republicans/SF/IRA like to dress up whay they do/did in language that somehow supposedly makes it more acceptable, or less monstrous than what other murderers and common thugs get up to because it was done 'for the cause'. A thug is a thug is a thug, calling him a 'volunteer' doesn't change that, on either side of the fence.

sligobhoy67

aidan24326 wrote:

Really? Tell that to the families of all those they murdered over the years. It may not have been 'policy', but when you plant a bomb it's almost inevitable that civilians will get killed/maimed in the process. Saying sh1t like 'it wasn't policy...' is typical of how republicans/SF/IRA like to dress up whay they do/did in language that somehow supposedly makes it more acceptable, or less monstrous than what other murderers and common thugs get up to because it was done 'for the cause'. A thug is a thug is a thug, calling him a 'volunteer' doesn't change that, on either side of the fence.

Aidan, please see the post I was replying to were they said it was IRA policy to target civilians - that is why I mentioned the word policy so get it right.

I would like to ask you how would the 26 counties of Ireland now by free without those who you call "murderous thugs!"

murphaph

sligobhoy67 wrote:

I would like to ask you how would the 26 counties of Ireland now by free without those who you call "murderous thugs!"

Oh no, not this old chestnut!:eek:

monument

aidan24326 wrote:

Saying sh1t like 'it wasn't policy...' is typical of how republicans/SF/IRA like to dress up whay they do/did in language

It's actually what all sides in the north have done/do.

aidan24326 wrote:

that somehow supposedly makes it more acceptable, or less monstrous than what other murderers and common thugs get up to because it was done 'for the cause'.

It’s pretty much how any side on any armed conflict tries to defend the un-defendable.

aidan24326 wrote:

A thug is a thug is a thug, calling him a 'volunteer' doesn't change that, on either side of the fence.

Totally agree. Whether it’s the IRA or the British Army, calling the person a freedom fighter, a defender or a soldier doesn’t change any thing too.

sligobhoy67 wrote:

Aidan, please see the post I was replying to were they said it was IRA policy to target civilians - that is why I mentioned the word policy so get it right.

Armies generally don’t have policies to target civilians, but (added: when) people die as a result of their actions they – like the IRA – are to blame at least to reasonable extent (which usually means fully).

sligobhoy67 wrote:

I would like to ask you how would the 26 counties of Ireland now by free without those who you call "murderous thugs!"

History could have run many alternative paths. The question is can you even imagine beyond a green tinted one?

mike65

sligobhoy67 wrote:

thats bull imo opinion - IRA does not have a policy of attacking civillians.

Whoops! Old school thinking there surely?

Mike.

Villain

What era of the IRA is the OP referring to, I mean Michael Collins was a member of the IRA and a Volunteer wasn't he?

sligobhoy67

murphaph wrote:

Oh no, not this old chestnut!:eek:

"old chestnut" cos you have no answer to it Unlce Tomás

murphaph

sligobhoy67 wrote:

"old chestnut" cos you have no answer to it Unlce Tomás

Do a search for "1916" and "irish freedom" and you'll see why it's an old chestnut. It's been debated here once or twice before ya'know!

Diogenes

sligobhoy67 wrote:

thats bull imo opinion - IRA does not have a policy of attacking civillians.

Kingsmill, Enniskillen, Guilford, Birmingham, Brighton etc etc etc...

Hagar

Surely a "Volunteer" is a person who joins an organization, any organization, of his own free will? In that respect it is a simply a perfectly accurate description of the person concerned. Now whether you agree with the aims of the organization is another matter entirely.

May I point out that the buttons of an Irish Army uniform have emblazoned upon them a Harp with the letters I and V each side of it. The IV stands for Irish Volunteer. I wonder where they came up with that?;)

Diorraing

The term volunteer derives from the Irish Volunteers or Óglaigh na hÉireann, and as I only recognise one Óglaigh na hÉireann (i.e our armed forces), I would not refer to the IRA as volunteers.

Hagar

But do you deny that is where the term came from?
The IRA became the Irish Army. Their leaders became our political leaders. They still are today. Like it or not, that is the truth.

The fact that part of the IRA stayed apart is a different matter entirely.

Jackie laughlin

Sligoboy,
There's no real difficulty answering the question. Without the terrorists Ireland would have achieved Home Rule and may have later declared a republic. The "Republic of Ireland" was achieved without firing a shot!

Partition is another question. However, the recent 30 years of murder and mayhem in pursuit of British withdrawal and Irish unity, and now the current crop of thugs who volunteered to become thugs are gagging to get into Stormont as ministers!! Is this what is meant by a "peace process"?

vesp

sligobhoy67 wrote:

thats bull imo opinion - IRA does not have a policy of attacking civillians.

Maybe now now in 2006 but it certainly did have during the seventies and eighties, for example. Bloody Friday, LeMons, Enniskillen, Guildford, etc etc. Probably long before your time, sligobhoy67. The people who indoctrinated you have a lot to answer for.

As clearly explained by other posters, sligobhoy67, if anything is bull it is your opinions.

newby.204

monument wrote:

Coming soon to this thread…

Denials that people have been charged in Irish courts for membership of the IRA otherwise the Irish Republican Army, otherwise, Oglaigh na hEireann.

Screening on this thread right now...

Denials that the 1916 was a bloody, undemocratic, and unlawful act.

A strange idea that volunteering is negative or positive.... if you think some one is a scum bag or a hero, it's because of their actions not the way they signed up... in saying all that 'member' is the safer term for the media to use.

As a member of the irish army i feel the need to tell you that Oglaigh na hEireann is used by the irish army(permanent defence forces) and should not be uesd as a ref for the scum that is the IRA and all other sub sections provos etc.....

If you google Oglaigh na hEireann you get the official website military.ie.

csk

^^^^^^
I think you may have missed the context Monument was using Oglaigh na hÉireann there.
afaik that is how people are charged with membership of the IRA in court and bringing in the petty squabbling over who has the right to use Oglaigh na hÉireann is to open up a completely differnt can of worms.


on topic, I agree with the people who have already stated that the term 'Volunteer' should not have positive or negative connotations.

strictly speaking IRA members are 'Volunteers'. the term, in and of, it self does not glorfy them. it is their actions that should determine whether they are seen as heroes or villians.

vesp

csk wrote:

strictly speaking IRA members are 'Volunteers'.

where did all the money raised from the noraid, from smuggling, from racketeering, from criminality go ?


Were not the Gardai who died at the hands of the PIRA volunteers also ?
Gerry McCabe volunteered to be a member of the Gardai, nobody conscripted him. The security force person who died after being shot in the woods in Leitrim in 1983 in the hunt for the pira kidnappers also was no conscript.
By contrast, many of those killed by the PIRA were not volunteers- they were just ordinary people in a pub, in a shop, in a restaurant etc etc

A Dub in Glasgo

vesp wrote:

where did all the money raised from the noraid, from smuggling, from racketeering, from criminality go ?

Financing their whole operation including prisoner support.

Were not the Gardai who died at the hands of the PIRA volunteers also ?

Yes

Gerry McCabe volunteered to be a member of the Gardai, nobody conscripted him. The security force person who died after being shot in the woods in Leitrim in 1983 in the hunt for the pira kidnappers also was no conscript.

Correct

By contrast, many of those killed by the PIRA were not volunteers- they were just ordinary people in a pub, in a shop, in a restaurant etc etc

I am having difficulty finding your point here

murphaph

IRA at least some 'Volunteers' do/did get paid though. They didn't spend all that stolen cash on guns n' ammo. So, not true volunteers like say, someone helping out in a soup kitchen.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

IRA at least some 'Volunteers' do/did get paid though. They didn't spend all that stolen cash on guns n' ammo. So, not true volunteers like say, someone helping out in a soup kitchen.

I don't think anybody would claim that Volunteer in this context means Volunteer in the sense of giving up ones labour for no financial reward. Other than conscripts, everybody (in what they do) is a volunteer ie they chose their own path.

tallus

Are you saying that one must get payed to be a volunteer? or one must do something for charity to qualify as a volunteer. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a word, you can attribute positive or negative sides to it, but in the end, it's nothing more than a word.
I never attributed it to any organisation until I seen the thread here, but it's ridiculous in my opinion to think that it glorifies anyone.
I think csk was correct in saying that individuals should be glorified by their actions, and not a label.

vesp

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Financing their whole operation including prisoner support.

They never kept prisoners though. They flouted the geneva convention ...well what would you expect from a terrorist organisation. They could not have used some of the stolen cash for example on prisoners because they shot any they got.


As murphaph correctly said, at least some PIRA "'Volunteers' do/did get paid though. They didn't spend all that stolen cash on guns n' ammo. So, not true volunteers like say, someone helping out in a soup kitchen." Why call them volunteers so ? Would you call the terrorists who flew the planes in to the twin towers on 9/11 "volunteers" ?

A Dub in Glasgo

vesp wrote:

They never kept prisoners though. They flouted the geneva convention ...well what would you expect from a terrorist organisation. They could not have used some of the stolen cash for example on prisoners because they shot any they got.

zzzzzzz

As murphaph correctly said, at least some PIRA "'Volunteers' do/did get paid though. They didn't spend all that stolen cash on guns n' ammo. So, not true volunteers like say, someone helping out in a soup kitchen."

So the IDF are not true volunteers then even though they call themselves the Irish Volunteers? What is it lip service? Do you think that a true volunteer is only somebody who gives up getting renumeration for their labour?

vesp

Glad you lost your point about "prisoner support".

As regards " Do you think that a true volunteer is only somebody who gives up getting renumeration for their labour? " - yes. I would not specifically call someone a volunteer otherwise. Do you say when Pat the postman calls " the volunteer is calling with the post today " because Pat has chosen the path in life of being a postman ? Sounds like you are very confused, Dub in Glasgow.

Now answer me what you have failed to do already : Would you call the terrorists who flew the planes in to the twin towers on 9/11 "volunteers" ?

tallus

The islamic terrorists dont seem to have a problem finding volunteers. Does that mean they are ira members too tho ?
This thread boggles the mind