Skip to main content
news

Re: Republicanism still an ...

Russ
Google Google
SubjectRe: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of
FromRuss
Date2002-04-17 17:48 (2002-04-17 17:48)
Message-ID<20020417114858.02883.00001796@mb-ba.aol.com>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsDavid Flood
Followupspaulh (49m) > Russ
Jette Goldie (4h & 32m) > Russ
In article <a9i0qf$3cdio$2@ID-121201.news.dfncis.de>, "David Flood" <NOSPAMmaoltuile@utvinternet.ie>writes:

In very rough figures, 3600 people were killed during the 'Troubles'.

David Flood
Half of

those, or 1800, were killed by the IRA. Half of that figure, or 900 were civilians. 900 over 30 years. How many civilians were killed by the UN

in

Iraq in less than one year? How many civilians were killed by NATO in

Serbia

in less than one year? I daresay many more than the 900 the IRA killed

over

30 years.

I would concede that they were (usually) much more discriminating in who they targetted, whereas for the other side, any old Catholic would do.

Actually, my rough figures very much overstated the IRA's imact on civilians.

Here are the actual figures from the CAIN website:

A total of 1706 deaths are attributed to the IRA. Of that 1011 (or 60%) were British Security; 516 (or 30%) were civilians; 7 were Irish security; 32 were Loyalist paramilitary; and 140 were Republican paramilitary (their own and others).

Let's compare the IRA's record with other groupings:

British Security (i.e. RUC, British Army, UDR, etc.) are credited with 363 death of which 192 (or 53%) were civilians.

And Loyalist paramilitaries are credited with 991 death of which 864 (a whopping 87% were civilians).

Not only was the IRA much more discriminating than the Loyalist paramilitaries, there were much mroe discriminating that British security services.

Quite frankly, IMO a force for which overall 70% of it's 'victims' were other combatants cannot be termed a terrorist force. That is not to say the IRA did not commit terrorist acts (they did), but it was not their modus operandi. Nor do the statistics answer the related but also different question of whether the IRA's violence was justified.

You mentioned that the IRA's use of force was not justified in 1972 and thereafter. I would cut them a bit more slack. Internment did not end until 1975. In fact, as you know, the IRA was on a ceasefire (on and off, but mostly on) from December 1974 through January 1976. That's where I would place the clear movement from justified to unjustified use of force. When they called a truce in December 1974, that should have been the end of it. The situation was by no means just in Northern Ireland but violence would not improve the situation. The British governments bears a signifiant responsibility themselves. Their response to the IRA's ceasfires were muted and slow and such measures as the PTA and criminalization were blatently counterproductive.. Both sides pissed away an opportunity to largely end the violence.

Russ

Google
paulh (49m) > Russ
Jette Goldie (4h & 32m) > Russ