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

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

ghostdancer

vesp wrote:

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" ?

i'll answer too while i'm here.

of course they are. they volunteered to give their time, effort, and ultimately lives, for a cause.

anything else?





christ, Politics just gets stupider and stupider.

A Dub in Glasgo

vesp wrote:

Glad you lost your point about "prisoner support".

Your glad for nothing then as the point still stands

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.

I think it is you who is very confused. You do not seem to understand the concept of 'to volunteer'.

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" ?

Yes unless you can point to evidence that they were forced to do what they did?

vesp

tallus wrote:

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

Nobody asked or even suggested the islamic terrorists were PIRA members too.

As Dub in Glasgow wrote "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 reward2.... so even though the PIRA were not real " volunteers", they did have something in common with the terrorists of 9/11. They both massacred civilians. That is why they were in the same class in the eyes of the American administration and most govts around the world. Even the Russians have condemned the PIRA during the cold war era of the 80's. They did not give a damn if they considered themselves " volunteers" or not..... how many banks do you rob, how many people do you kidnap or dupe, how much do you smuggle before you cease being a "volunteer" ?

The same goes for those on the other side. Many of the original "Ulster Volunteer Force " may have been volunteers but would you give the Shankhill butchers respectability by calling them " volunteers" ?

ghostdancer

murphaph wrote:

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).

that's nice, many others do however.
what has the deaths of a couple of hundred dubliners got to do with anything?
they caused the deaths of a couple of hundred of British soldiers, British civil servants, and Irish civil servants.
and now we celebrate them in parades and the like.

murphaph wrote:

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

yes, but it's like a train wreck. it's hard to look away.
the pathetic bickering and retarded-ness of some posters on this board, and the stupid pettiness of some threads just keeps on bringing me back.

tallus

vesp wrote:

Nobody asked or even suggested the islamic terrorists were PIRA members too.

As Dub in Glasgow wrote "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 reward2.... so even though the PIRA were not real " volunteers", they did have something in common with the terrorists of 9/11. They both massacred civilians. That is why they were in the same class in the eyes of the American administration and most govts around the world. Even the Russians have condemned the PIRA during the cold war era of the 80's. They did not give a damn if they considered themselves " volunteers" or not..... how many banks do you rob, how many people do you kidnap or dupe, how much do you smuggle before you cease being a "volunteer" ?

The same goes for those on the other side. Many of the original "Ulster Volunteer Force " may have been volunteers but would you give the Shankhill butchers respectability by calling them " volunteers" ?

In fairness I wouldn't give either side respectability. Comparing 9/11 to Northern Ireland is not really fair tho, and I'm not taking sides here, but was new york considered to be a city under occupation by half of the population there? and since when does the russians condemning anybody make them the bad guys? I mean look at what's happening in the news right now. Two guys investigating the KGB have been poisioned, and one has died.

oscarBravo

sligobhoy67 wrote:

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

I'd like you to explain what you mean by those last two words.

vesp

Comparing 9/11 to Northern Ireland is not really fair tho?

We were comparing terrorists in N. Ireland to other terrorists . Whats the difference between bombing dozens of shops full of shoppers in Belfast city centre, killing and maiming many,like happened on bloody Friday, and the attacks on 9/11 ? Or the Le Mons restaurant bombing ? Different scale, thats all. However, one could compare that the PIRA caused more economic destruction to N. Ireland per head of population there over the course of the troubles than possibly the 9/11 terrorists did to America, I do not know.

One thing the PIRA and 9/11 terrorists have in common, as I said - they were condemned by governments accross the spectrum around the world from America to Russia.

tallus

I think we basically agree that terrorism is wrong in any way shape or form vesp, but we're going slightly off topic. The word Volunteer can be applied to many people in many situations, but personally I dont think it glorifies ira membership, or membership of any illegal organisation for that matter.

vesp

Fair enough. However, to be consistent, those who call Republican extremists "volunteers" should also refer to the Loyalist extremists - who also carried out atrocities - as "volunteers". We are all volunteers of one sort or another. Nobody forces us to do anything. Volunteer postman, volunteer shopper, volunteer builder, volunteer boatman, volunteer policeman, volunteer politician ....all were killed by the other "volunteers".

the_syco

vesp wrote:

Volunteer postman, volunteer shopper, volunteer builder, volunteer boatman, volunteer policeman, volunteer politician ....all were killed by the other "volunteers".

A volunteer does something knowing they won't get paid for it. The above all get paid for their jobs.