The Irish Republican Army: Terrorists or Freedom Fighters

Is the Irish Republican Army a freedom fighting group or a terrorist organization?

Peter T. King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, presided over a series of hearings on Muslim radicalization. He has asserted that 85% of leaders of American mosques hold extremist views and that Muslims do not cooperate with law enforcement. His attitude towards Muslims has stirred a large amount of controversy, primarily due to his previous support of Irish Republican Army (IRA).

King, son of a New York City police officer and grand nephew of an IRA member was once quoted, at a pro IRA rally in 1982, as saying "we must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women, who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British Imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry." Later he also stated "if civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it." (Ed Moloney, The Sun, 2005) He saw them as the "legitimate voice of occupied Ireland”

However, Mr. King "appears to spread blame for Terrorism to the entire population of American Muslims." (Scott Shane, New York Times, 2011) As one can see, Mr. King blatantly painted the American Muslim as supporters of terrorism, whereas the Irish American's were supporters of freedom fighters.
The labeling of an organization as a terrorist group versus a freedom fighting group is a highly significant issue of context influencing language that I would like to address in this discussion.

There does not appear to be a universally accepted definition of terrorism, however, the highly recognized source of the US Department of Defense provides the following definition of terrorism: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." To qualify as a terrorist organization the organization cannot be an army belonging to any officially recognized state or government. Merriam-Webster defines a freedom fighter as "a person who takes part in a resistance movement against an oppressive political or social establishment" So Peter King chooses to view the IRA as freedom fighters but do they qualify as a terrorist organization. Well, according to both definitions the IRA could be categorized as either one. The IRA were in fact a resistance moment against the oppressive political and social British establishment in Northern Ireland. However, the IRA were also involved in politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets in cases such as their bombings of hotels and public establishments. The labeling of an organization as a freedom fighting group or a terrorist organization would lead one to embrace them or condemn them accordingly. An old saying argues that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. To many people, Irish Catholics in particular, the IRA represented opposition to British oppression and therefore were seen as heroes in contrast to others who would argue that the IRA is a terrorist organization. This, however, is merely due to the context they are embracing when they need to decide how they shall label a group that cannot be correctly labeled one and not the other.

In discussions with my mother’s family from County Limerick, it was evident from their recounting of IRA stories that during their childhood they perceived the IRA as freedom fighters and heroes. Stories of great grandfathers fighting off the "black and tans" in the early years of the 20th century and neighbor’s involvement in bank robberies on behalf of the IRA were told with pride and patriotism. I have been inclined to view the IRA as a freedom fighting group, fighting for a Republic of Ireland of 32 counties.

A strong example of the labeling being highly effected by context is in the recognition of the professional tennis player Andy Murray. Andy Murray is a Scot but in being a Scotsman is effectively British. In the early days of Murray's career with victory much of the British media and citizens alike greeted his victories with celebrations of a "significant British triumph" (Magnus Linklater, The Times) . On the contrary, every time he lost, he "could be consigned to the dank, sub-racist compartment that concluded that he was not really a British hero, merely a Scottish loser." This example, shows the that labeling and defining terms can never be definite and is highly subject to context.