Huh?
Tell that to the 1800 people estimated to have been killed by the IRA during the troubles, some 600 odd of them civilians.
Even outside of Ireland - remember Canary Wharf? Manchester? My husband had the windows of his office blown out by an IRA bomb in London. Thank god he was not in his office at the time.
Hey, first of all, I am not defending the IRA in any way, shape, or form. Still less the idiots who supplied them (and the PLO) with money. I would never underestimate the suffering they caused, especially in idiotic acts such as Canary Warf. The point is that most of IRA activity was the tit for tat gang-style killing they specialized in -- in my view the IRA were/are (post-Collins here) simply a bunch of thugs; gangsters. Also, if we are only referring to the troubles, it's an average of 60 or so over a 30 year period. I'll be the first to admit that Americans whine a little too much about 9/11, but you have to admit -- 2100 or so in one day is a pretty singular event. That's all I am saying.
As we are talking numbers, In last decade or so, 500,000 Indians have lost their lives, thanks to terrorism supported by our dear neighbour.
But this'll give an idea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India
Last edited by gunsnroses; 28-05-2010 at 01:48 PM. Reason: Made a booboo on the numbers...That figure I'd read in a newspaper, but when I am googling, I can't find anything close...
not defending terrorists/ira- but it was a lot easier to handle and stop IRA bombings- than to handle someone who's got a bomb strapped/locked onto him...
look at the simple ratio as to how many bombs were found before they were blown up (or at least had time to clear an area) vs. how many suicide bombers were found before they blew anything up.
suicide bombers are the game changer. it's the end of privacy rights...
campas12 - your point sort of brings this discussion full circle. The IRA depended on the support of foolish (but supposedly well-meaning) people in the US and elsewhere to finance their operations, so were generally somewhat restrained accordingly. The current breed of Islamist terrorist essentially is out to create chaos and fear, to undermine existing social systems, so the more horrifying the brutality the better. Sawing the heads off of an infidel makes perfect sense, I suppose, to someone who believes that any violent act that brings publicity is a good thing, and who is totally unconstrained by any societal code. Those actions sow the seeds of their own destruction eventually, but can be counted on to attract a few nihilistic recruits.