Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of |
From | paulh |
Date | 2002-04-17 18:38 (2002-04-17 18:38) |
Message-ID | <e98rbucq4mthqb0qag38r7nos46i4d1g8r@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
Follows | Russ |
Followups | David Flood () > paulh Tamim (11m) > paulh Russ (36m) > paulh |
RussWhat utter rubbish. Can you show me anywhere credible, other than in your opinion, where terrorist forces are defined as those which only kill X% or more of 'civilians' vs combatants.. SO what ratio needs to be aspired to for THIS then? Perhaps if the Loyalist Paramilitaries kill more 'combatants' then you'll be happy to take them off the list of 'Terrorists'.. What a pathetic excuse to justify terrorism..
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.