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

vesp

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.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

zzzzzzz

I'd rather you were consistant with the sleepyness ADIG...It doesnt do to be sleepy hearing unaccountable armies being criticised when you aren't so sleepy listening to the armies you are more in disagreement with being criticised...
what ever happened to your pacifism?

A Dub in Glasgo

Tristrame wrote:

I'd rather you were consistant with the sleepyness ADIG...It doesnt do to be sleepy hearing unaccountable armies being criticised when you aren't so sleepy listening to the armies you are more in disagreement with being criticised...
what ever happened to your pacifism?

The sleepiness was at the way vesp was bringing the discussion off on a tangent. If he did not know what I meant by 'prisoner support', he either needs to research a bit more or ask, not go off on a tangent.

Diorraing

Jackie laughlin wrote:

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!

I thought the Irish people had voted overwhelmingly in favour of Home Rule for over 30 years by electing the Irish Parliamentary Party but the British failed to grant it. What makes you think that they would have this time. After the passing of the 2 years under the Parliamentary Act, Asquith said that he would grant home rule (i) when the war ended and (ii) conditional upon an agreement being reached with unionist. Both conditions show a reluctance.
Why would we have ha to wait till the end of the war, when all reports indicated that it would be a "short war" (no war in living memory had lasted as long as WW1). It seems that Asquith was procrastinating.
Secondly, there was no way that Unionists would ever consent to home rule on this island, north or south. (c.f. solemn covenant...) Asquith basically shifted the veto from the House of Lords to the Unionists.
To say home rule would have been granted anyway is highly speculative and can never be proved. What can be proved though is that a much better deal than home rule was actually won by the War of Independence. I know I'm drifting off topic but I don't like seeing historical inaccuracies go unchallenged

csk

vesp wrote:

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

Well I'm not the IRA's accountant but I would hazard a guess that it went towards financing the organisation, buying weapons and ammo, the upkeep of safe houses, essential supplies, prisoner support etc, etc.

While undoubtedly some were paid, I don't think that was the primary motivation for becoming a member of the IRA, unlike say, your example of Pat the Postman whose primary motivation is probably to get paid at the end of the week.

Yes Jerry Mccabe and other Gardaí were Volunteer's, in that they willingly joined a force, where they knew that one day their lives might be at risk. No different to members of the IRA in my opinion.

Now that doen't mean that the IRA's actions in killing members of the Gardaí was not despicable, reprehensible or any other word you can think of because it was.
Yet note the word actions.
It is this that determines positive or negative.

While it is your moralizing of the term 'Volunteer' that offers it as a term of glorification.

Fratton Fred

sligobhoy67 wrote:

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

pretty crap at sticking to their policy then aren't they, or do they really think the SAS are aged 7 years old and do their Christmas shopping in Warrington

Are they still Volunteers or can we now just call them drug dealing racketeering scum? (And I make no distinction between the PIRA, the INLA, the UVF etc etc).

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

Are they still Volunteers or can we now just call them drug dealing racketeering scum? (And I make no distinction between the PIRA, the INLA, the UVF etc etc).

Well considering the Provisional IRA have disbanded then I would presume there is longer any organistation to 'Volunteer' for anymore.;)

Jackie laughlin

Dior,
Yes, of course I was speculating. The point is that violence here in the last 100yrs has achieved nothing of substance.



A couple of facts.
The 1916 patriots did murder ordinary Dubliners.
The IRA has not disbanded.


Back to the thread:
I'd like to see the discussion expand beyond the use of "volunteer". SF/IRA are masterful in the use of terminology to obscure barbarism.

Flex

Diorraing wrote:

I thought the Irish people had voted overwhelmingly in favour of Home Rule for over 30 years by electing the Irish Parliamentary Party but the British failed to grant it. What makes you think that they would have this time. After the passing of the 2 years under the Parliamentary Act, Asquith said that he would grant home rule (i) when the war ended and (ii) conditional upon an agreement being reached with unionist. Both conditions show a reluctance.
Why would we have ha to wait till the end of the war, when all reports indicated that it would be a "short war" (no war in living memory had lasted as long as WW1). It seems that Asquith was procrastinating.
Secondly, there was no way that Unionists would ever consent to home rule on this island, north or south. (c.f. solemn covenant...) Asquith basically shifted the veto from the House of Lords to the Unionists.
To say home rule would have been granted anyway is highly speculative and can never be proved. What can be proved though is that a much better deal than home rule was actually won by the War of Independence. I know I'm drifting off topic but I don't like seeing historical inaccuracies go unchallenged

I wont add any extra historical facts into this so as not to cause the thread to go off topic, so all Ill say is thats very well said Diorraing

vesp

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Dior,
Yes, of course I was speculating. The point is that violence here in the last 100yrs has achieved nothing of substance.



A couple of facts.
The 1916 patriots did murder ordinary Dubliners.
The IRA has not disbanded.


Back to the thread:
I'd like to see the discussion expand beyond the use of "volunteer". SF/IRA are masterful in the use of terminology to obscure barbarism.

Agreed and well said. However, its amazing how terminology can brainwash the mind. I do not consider the rebels of 1916 "patriots". They were not looked on as patriots by the general people of Dublin then either, many of whom spat and jeered at them. Hundreds of thousands of people were either serving in Europe of had a family member serving in Europe. Our canals, trains, harbours, universities etc were something to be proud of at the time. Sure there was poverty, but there was equal if not worse poverty in every other country in the world.


Even the way the PIRA used to call themselves an " army " was an insult to all those who served in the armies of democratically elected governments. Besides, proper armies do not wear civilian clothes and put bombs under the cars of retired policemen, or kill kids in Warrington, or shoppers in Belfast, or people enjoying a meal in Le Mon.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The sleepiness was at the way vesp was bringing the discussion off on a tangent. If he did not know what I meant by 'prisoner support', he either needs to research a bit more or ask, not go off on a tangent.

Do´not give me that.
What volunteers volunteer for is 100% on topic and especially whqt IRA volunteers volunteer for.

You let your mask slip there.You shouldnt be defending the IRA volunteers here if you claim to be a pacifist as you have done many times here.

A Dub in Glasgo

vesp wrote:

Even the way the PIRA used to call themselves an " army " was an insult to all those who served in the armies of democratically elected governments. Besides, proper armies do not wear civilian clothes and put bombs under the cars of retired policemen, or kill kids in Warrington, or shoppers in Belfast, or people enjoying a meal in Le Mon.

What does a proper army do? Wear uniforms and then shoot unarmed teenagers, drop massive bombs onto woman & children, carpet bomb cities and use weapons of mass destruction against civilians?

A Dub in Glasgo

Tristrame wrote:

Do´not give me that.
What volunteers volunteer for is 100% on topic and especially whqt IRA volunteers volunteer for.

Hardly on topic when the post was referring to the money supporting prisoners.

You let your mask slip there.You shouldnt be defending the IRA volunteers

Care to point that out? or is this another one of those days where you want to point out 'inconsistancies'? Amazingly, every one else on boards is apparantly consistant!!

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What does a proper army do? Wear uniforms and then shoot unarmed teenagers, drop massive bombs onto woman & children, carpet bomb cities and use weapons of mass destruction against civilians?

sorry, off topic slightly, but has any army anywhere not committed an atrocity. can't think of any major army that hasn't.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Hardly on topic when the post was referring to the money supporting prisoners.

collected by active duty volunteers doing what they knew best -robbing banks. Now if you want to try to say thats off topic,I `will say Brussels is in France-both things are about as true.

Care to point that out? or is this another one of those days where you want to point out 'inconsistancies'? Amazingly, every one else on boards is apparantly consistant!!

Care to clarify? Are you a pacifist? or just selective with the illegal wars?
As for the misnomer at the end of your post there-try harder.

A Dub in Glasgo

Tristrame wrote:

Care to clarify? Are you a pacifist? or just selective with the illegal wars?
As for the misnomer at the end of your post there-try harder.

The inquisition has started again :eek: :eek: Again, everyone on boards appears to miss this inquisition apart from me! Can we have some consistancy please?

I am sure you can use the mod powers to search the previous inquisions conducted by your good selves to find your answer

So you dont want to answer here as you have been posting sympathetically to an organisation that for years conducted an illegal war,yet you will use every chance to condemn wars you disagree with and you find it inconvenient here to clarify whether you are a pacifist or not...

I see only one logical conclusion to draw from that-inconsistency.
Consistency of opinion is not an unreasonable demand for posting -It is the essence of credibility.
Without it opinions are relatively meaningless.

monument

Health warning: In ‘real life’ (TM), when I criticise actions of our police force some of my friends assume I also general lack for the police – this is not the case; I actually have an above average level of respect for them. So please don’t make the opposite kind of assumptions of me liking the Provos – I’m actually pretty neutral towards them (maybe something that annoys some posters here then being greener then green).

Too many here are far too quick to moralise positions when others aren’t trying to use moral wording.

newby.204 wrote:

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.

Fine, but if I was you I would not going around saying “I'm a member of Oglaigh na hEireann" to the police or a judges.

Sure, and while we’re talking about attempting to take names, titles, and deeds from the Provos, celebrating the bloody, undemocratic, and criminal at that was 1916 really helps things!

I think (opposed to believe, believes are harder to changed) it was the right thing to do at the time, but such doesn’t make every act labelled bloody, undemocratic, and criminal wrong. The world was a different place. The problem is explaining this to some of the raving nuts in the Provos.

tallus wrote:

I think we basically agree that terrorism is wrong in any way shape or form vesp,

Yeah, and a good few of ‘us’ here think it’s fine for err democratic armies to kill, (or should I say “make people dead”?)… Oh, no, wait – why did we celebrate bloody, undemocratic, and criminals? Now I’m confused.

Fratton Fred wrote:

Are they still Volunteers or can we now just call them drug dealing racketeering scum? (And I make no distinction between the PIRA, the INLA, the UVF etc etc).

Please carry on….

Anyone see the week in politics last night? – when Michael McDowell starts raving about the Provos the sample of voters shockingly call him boring!!! As ADIG might say “ZZZZZZZZZZZ”. I think he’s highly entertaining tbh.

To be extra clear here, the Provos certainly may need to think about drawing a line in the sand when it comes to British Army murders or other murders associated with the British, they have being and are still looking for such for their own. Even if enquires go ahead they have to understand that no head will roll, that would be looking for double standards (did I just open another can of worms?).

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'd like to see the discussion expand beyond the use of "volunteer". SF/IRA are masterful in the use of terminology to obscure barbarism.

Remember, when the “SF/IRA” term is used by McDowell, the voters go ‘ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ’.

“terminology to obscure barbarism” - They really did study the British well, didn’t they?

Tristrame wrote:

Are you a pacifist? or just selective with the illegal wars?

That would put him on par with a lot of people around here, they just can’t agree on wars.

vesp

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Hardly on topic when the post was referring to the money supporting prisoners.

As I said before the Provos did not spend much of their vast amount of money on their prisoners....any they got they shot. Even when they were innocent mothers of 10 like Jean McColville. The provos, even though they thought of themselves as an army, did not take prisoners. On the other hand, IRA terrorists captured red handed did not cost the IRA money - they were detained at the expense of the taxpayer in either jurisdiction. When released they often got the dole. To suggest that the "volunteers" gave a lot of the proceeds of Noraid, from all the armed roberies, smuggling, extortion etc to "prisoner relief" is absurd.

Hagar

vesp wrote:

As I said before the Provos did not spend much of their vast amount of money on their prisoners....To suggest that the "volunteers" gave a lot of the proceeds of Noraid, from all the armed roberies, smuggling, extortion etc to "prisoner relief" is absurd.

LOL you cannot be serious. Are you? Come on, tell me that's a joke.

vesp

You think the " volunteers" were do-gooders that gave money to other people, esp. those it took prisoner ? Many of its victims were shot or blown up without becoming prisoners. The prisoners it did capture were often tortured and killed. Or made in to proxy bombers like the cook who was forced to drive a bomb in to a checkpoint while his family were held hostage. Other people who were maimed for life of amputees because of PIRA bombs were also prisoners of a kind. The tens of millions from the armed robberies and extortion etc ....do not say it all went on prisoners.

Hagar

To save you further embrassment.
The money that went on prisoners went to support the families of Volunteers who were held at Her Majesty's pleasure in The Maze prison and other fine establishments.
Is the light coming on yet?

vesp

Hagar wrote:

To save you further embrassment.
The money that went on prisoners went to support the families of Volunteers who were held at Her Majesty's pleasure in The Maze prison and other fine establishments.
Is the light coming on yet?

I knew you would say that. Many were single men. How many had families that needed support ? Would the families have starved if they had not received the tens of millions of pounds, or would they have existed like their neighbours existed ? ( working and on welfare ) ? Oh, I am sure the hard men would have given them a few quid now and again, but there was an awful lot of banks robbed, money raised in America, protection rackets, kidnappings, smuggling , ....not to mention passing the begging bucket at various concerts etc.

Hagar

vesp wrote:

I knew you would say that.

How did you know? You didn't know 2 posts ago.

vesp wrote:

You think the " volunteers" were do-gooders that gave money to other people, esp. those it took prisoner ?

Erin Go Brath

csk wrote:

^^^^^^

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.

I agree with the above comment. Volunteer in the context of this country is just the term that has been used to describe people joining up in arms to defend their idea of nationhood. The Irish Volunteers were set up in response to the Ulster Volunteers. The Irish Volunteers later became the IRA, the Ulster Volunteers became the UVF. The term Volunteer could easily be replaced with another term, it just means member of an organisation really. It certainly doesnt prove to glorify anyone imo.

vesp

Well seeing as how the PIRA did not spend a penny on prisoners it captured - apart from maybe the odd pliers and the odd bullet - what other prisoners were there ? :rolleyes: And they did not have to pay for their b+b, did they ?

Now, how many had families that needed support ? Would the families have starved if they had not received the tens of millions of pounds, or would they have existed like their neighbours existed ? ( working and on welfare ) ? Oh, I am sure the hard men would have given them a few quid now and again, but there was an awful lot of banks robbed, money raised in America, protection rackets, kidnappings, smuggling , ....not to mention passing the begging bucket at various concerts etc.

Diogenes

Hagar wrote:

To save you further embrassment.
The money that went on prisoners went to support the families of Volunteers who were held at Her Majesty's pleasure in The Maze prison and other fine establishments.
Is the light coming on yet?

So I can assume you can provide evidence that every single penny was spent on "prisoner support" and wasn't diverted to fund terrorist activity? Right? Because, thats a very sweeping statement, announcing that every nickle and dollar thrown into the hat "for the political prisoners" made its way to the families in Belfast and Derry...

See, I don't know if it did or didn't, but I find it hard to back a sweeping statement like the above. I mean lets just take Noraid shall we? Martin Galvin, the head of Noraid, is a supporter of the 32CSM, the politcal wing of the RIRA, which is a group that is more than a little at odds of the stated aim of Noraid to "achieve the peaceful reunification of Ireland". Tell that to the people of Omagh. Noraid have also been linked to the PIRA.

James Adams book,The Financing of Terror States that in the 80s Noraid raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to fund the IRA campaign. (It should be pointed out that this money pales into insignifigance when considering how much the IRA earned through smuggling, and the dubious habit of extorting the businesses of the communities they claimed to protect).

sligobhoy67

Diogenes wrote:

So I can assume you can provide evidence that every single penny was spent on "prisoner support" and wasn't diverted to fund terrorist activity.

what do you want him to do - pull the accounts out for the years 79 through 94 - I think he might have them in the loft.

Of course the money went on political support, families support and military operations - thank fook someone was doing it - the reason reason we have 800 year of oppersion is because of west brit cowards that were too afraid to stand up for themselves.

Diogenes

sligobhoy67 wrote:

what do you want him to do - pull the accounts out for the years 79 through 94 - I think he might have them in the loft.

Noraid are a registered charity, so I would imagine they ought to have to publish accounts. Its a rule of this forum that the onus on whomever makes a claim to support the claim, Hagar has made a claim the onus is on him to support it. Incidently its funny you just assumed they wouldn't, why wouldn't they? And why would you take it as red that it was naturally spent exactly where it went? Where's your proof? Shall we discuss IRA men getting rich on the cream of their fundraising activity? Noraid are a charity in the US, though in 1981 they were forced to admit that the IRA were a foreign principal.

Of course the money went on political support, families support and military operations -

Ah the last bit is the best, so you admit that cash was spent on military actions. Grand so, when they pass that hat around "for the politcal prisoners" (and the for the families of the "political prisoners" who will be arrested after the operation this money funds)

thank fook someone was doing it - the reason reason we have 800 year of oppersion is because of west brit cowards that were too afraid to stand up for themselves.

Wow, what a succinent and intelligent way to boil down a complex relationship between two nations over close to a millenium. Incidently bravo on suggesting that the entire population of this country you admire were cowards, for literaly centuries. Bravo...

Hagar to finish my point. I don't know if every penny spent went on prisoner support, I'm just suspicious because Noraid are just so vague, over how the money raised over there, gets to the families over here, not to mention, the dubious links between Noraid and the IRA and various splinters. But you seem to know the money went to the people who you said it was raised for. So why don't you post some evidence.

Incidently (to wander dangerously back on topic) I think the term volunteer is just another masterstroke of IRA propaganda. Most terrorist groups call their men soldiers. But, volunteer? Jesus, thats sublime. The lingustics is just fantastic, just think of the press releases "today an IRA soldier died" to "today an IRA volunteer was killed". In todays age a soldier is a term which suggests some who kills and murders, a unthinking order taking killing machine. However, now a volunteer well the word just screams "self sacrifice" and "duty to a greater cause", someone making a "conscious decision to change their world for the better". The british and american armies spend millions trying to recruit people, displaying their troops as engineers, and doctors, resolving hostile situations, while playing volleyball with the locals. All just to give them a reputation as more than soldiers. The IRA? They just rebrand their terrorists as "volunteers".

Hagar

Diogenes wrote:

So I can assume you can provide evidence that every single penny was spent on "prisoner support" and wasn't diverted to fund terrorist activity?.

Where did I say that? Show me. Can't? I didn't think so.
Nobody claimed that every penny was money spent on prisoner support. Some of it definitely was, the rest obviously wasn't.

TBH 90% of the posts in this thread are strictly off topic. Including those by the mod. The answer to the original question posed by the OP is either yes or no. A poll would have suited nicely but why pass up an opportunity to bait Republicans.:mad:

Diogenes

Hagar wrote:

Where did I say that? Show me. Can't? I didn't think so.
Nobody claimed that every penny was money spent on prisoner support. Some of it definitely was, the rest obviously wasn't.

Oh please are you serious?

Vesp said

vesp wrote:

As I said before the Provos did not spend much of their vast amount of money on their prisoners.

You responded...

hagar wrote:

LOL you cannot be serious. Are you? Come on, tell me that's a joke.

Vesp comes back with;

vesp wrote:

You think the " volunteers" were do-gooders that gave money to other people, esp. those it took prisoner ? Many of its victims were shot or blown up without becoming prisoners. The prisoners it did capture were often tortured and killed. Or made in to proxy bombers like the cook who was forced to drive a bomb in to a checkpoint while his family were held hostage. Other people who were maimed for life of amputees because of PIRA bombs were also prisoners of a kind. The tens of millions from the armed robberies and extortion etc ....do not say it all went on prisoners.

Hagar wrote:

To save you further embrassment.
The money that went on prisoners went to support the families of Volunteers who were held at Her Majesty's pleasure in The Maze prison and other fine establishments.
Is the light coming on yet?

Theres no some money you refer to it explicity as the money clearly saying all the cash went on Prisoner support.:rolleyes:

TBH 90% of the posts in this thread are strictly off topic. Including those by the mod. The answer to the original question posed by the OP is either yes or no. A poll would have suited nicely but why pass up an opportunity to bait Republicans.:mad:

Owwww ickle republicans don't like being baited? Seeing as you dragged this section of the thread down the fundraising rabbit hole you've some nerve complaining. Don't like a post? There's the report post button...