paulh
killing other citizens for political motives without being part of a government sanctioned unit and wearing a recognisable uniform.

Russ
That describes virtually every world war 2 resistance group.

And quite frankly, I've never seen anybody but you define terrorists that way. Most people, for example, reconize that there can be perfectly legitimate non-terrorist guerilla groups.

In the early part of the 'Troubles' the IRA was very much supported by the Catholic population and was even sent arms by the Irish Republic. They almost exclusively fought in defense of their own towns and neighborhoods against invading forces (whether loyalist paramilitary or police and sometimes both together). Were they terrorists then?

The *fact* that 70% of those killed by the IRA were other combatants and 30%

paulh
were

civilians is pretty stong evidence that the IRA were not targeting and

killing

civilians as a modus operandi.

Terrorism is just that.

Russ
Boy, that's a stunning piece of logic: terrorism is terrorism. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

paulh
And I will state again (lest you make a false accusation), this is a different

issue than the question whether an organization has committed individual terrorist acts. The IRA did. So did the British Army.

But as one is a terrorist organisation and the other is an Army then its not the same thing.

Russ
OK, so if an IRA unit ambushes a British Army patrol, they are terrorists.

But if a an Army unit fires into a peaceful civilian demonstration, they are not terrorists?

Were the Nazi SS terrorists?

Your logic is completely circular. IRA members are terrorists. Why? Because they belong to a terrorist organization. Why is it a terrorist organization? Because it's members are terrorists. Why are they terrorists? Because they commit terrorism. What is terrorism? Terrorism is terrorism.

I'm sorry if the facts are getting in the way of your opinion, but facts are facts and the numbers are the numbers. If you want to argue that the

paulh
numbers

should be interpreted in a different way, then be my guest.

But you don't have facts. You're justifying terrorism based on statistics.. THIS organisation ISN'T cos it met Ratio X, this one IS because it was 2% too low. Disgusting...

Russ
Maybe, but you have yet to proffer another valid analysis.