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.