paulh
On 17 Apr 2002 15:48:58 GMT, mcresq@aol.com (Russ) wrote:

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

Here are the actual figures from the CAIN website:

A total of 1706 deaths are attributed to the IRA. Of that 1011 (or 60%)

British Security; 516 (or 30%) were civilians; 7 were Irish security; 32

Loyalist paramilitary; and 140 were Republican paramilitary (their own

others).

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

British Security (i.e. RUC, British Army, UDR, etc.) are credited with

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

there were much mroe discriminating that British security services.

Quite frankly, IMO a force for which overall 70% of it's 'victims' were

combatants cannot be termed a terrorist force.

paulh
What 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

of 'civilians' vs combatants.. SO what ratio needs to be aspired to for

then? Perhaps if the Loyalist Paramilitaries kill more 'combatants' then

be happy to take them off the list of 'Terrorists'.. What a pathetic excuse to justify terrorism..