Loyalists / The Troubles in numbers

Exile 1798

KeithAFC wrote: »

Create a thread for it. This thread isn't about loyalists.

Keith repeatedly refused to address the record of Loyalists when it was presented to him in his "PIRA not guilty of war crimes - Gerry Adams" thread but he made the above helpful suggestion which I've taken up.

---

Republican paramilitaries combined are responsible for 2060 casualties during the Troubles:

727 Civilians
1080 British Security Forces
187 Republican paramilitaries (inclusive of accidents, informers and feuds)
56 Loyalist paramilitaries.
10 Irish security.

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html Enter "Status Summary" as the first variable & "Organisation Summary" and the second.)

35% of the people killed by Republicans were civilians. The designation civilian in this summary is inclusive of politicians (25 killed), prison officers (22 killed), suspected informers (who weren’t members of Republican paramilitaries) and accused criminals who were killed by Republicans acting as vigilantes. However the majority of civilians are those completely uninvolved who were caught up in bombings/shootings.

The above figures are inclusive of all Republican groups up to 1999 (PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, IPLO Belfast and the RIRA) Omagh is included. By 1999 the CIRA had killed no one. The figures also include all civilians deaths perpetrated by Republican’s using cover names such as Direct Action Against Drugs, Republican Action Force, Catholic Reaction Force ect.

---

The figures for the Provisional IRA are as follows. The PIRA caused the deaths of 1711 people:

512 Civilians
1012 British Security Forces
141 Republican paramilitaries
39 Loyalist Paramiltaries
7 Irish security

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html enter "Status" as the first variable and "Organisation" as the second)

29.9% of the people killed by the PIRA were civilians.

---

Loyalist paramilitaries killed 1016 people during the Troubles:

868 Civilians
14 British Security
41 Republican paramilitaries.
93 Loyalist paramilitaries (mostly feuds, some accidents)

85.43% of people killed by Loyalists were civilians. 4.7% of the people killed by Loyalists were Republican paramilitaries. That figure includes Republicans who were ex-paramilitaries. Loyalists killed more civilians then anyone during the Troubles.

The overwhelming majority of these (684) were Catholic civilians who Loyalists intentionally and wilfully murdered. Of the remainder, the largest minority were Protestant civilians who were murdered when mistaken for being Catholics. A smaller minority were Protestant civilians killed by Loyalists for personal/criminal reasons.

The Loyalists and British Security Forces combined killed 1055 civilians during the Troubles. That's 328 more civilians then all Republican groups combined and more then double the number civilians who were killed by the PIRA.

*in their "Status summary" CAIN counts ex-paramilitaries as paramilitaries and ex-UDR/RUC as British Security.*

To get a full break down you can create cross tabulations: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/selecttabs.html

There you go Keith, now you can give your views on the record of Loyalists without derailing your Gerry Adam's thread.

Frank Black

Is the points of this adding up of numbers to demonstrate that one side was 'better' than the other?
Surely they were both a bunch of murdering sociopaths.

Sunnyisland

Thank you exile1798,
It might bring a bit of balance instead of the usual blame it all on the republican mentality that has existed here,

I have always said that there was more than one side to this conflict/war and imo the more people who accept this the better the future for all will be. acceptance is the key.

Exile 1798

black francis wrote: »

Is the points of this adding up of numbers to demonstrate that one side was 'better' than the other?
Surely they were both a bunch of murdering sociopaths.

What's the point of collecting any data on anything?

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/index.html

In a Peter Taylor documentary* on the media's coverage of the Troubles he interviewed a former chief Northern Ireland correspondent. He said unequivocally that during the Troubles there was a hierarchy of victims in the media's view that went something like this.

1) English civilians killed in Britain
2) British solders killed
3) RUC men killed
4) Protestant civilians killed
5) Catholic civilians killed by Loyalists

Don't you think it's important to note that the victims who were considered the least reportable were the people who suffered the most?

*Does anyone know the name of that documentary?

Gerry.L

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Keith repeatedly refused to address the record of Loyalists when it was presented to him in his "PIRA not guilty of war crimes - Gerry Adams" thread but he made the above helpful suggestion which I've taken up.

---

Republican paramilitaries combined are responsible for 2060 casualties during the Troubles:

727 Civilians
1080 British Security Forces
187 Republican paramilitaries (inclusive of accidents, informers and feuds)
56 Loyalist paramilitaries.
10 Irish security.

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html Enter "Status Summary" as the first variable & "Organisation Summary" and the second.)

35% of the people killed by Republicans were civilians. The designation civilian in this summary is inclusive of politicians (25 killed), prison officers (22 killed), suspected informers (who weren’t members of Republican paramilitaries) and accused criminals who were killed by Republicans acting as vigilantes. However the majority of civilians are those completely uninvolved who were caught up in bombings/shootings.

The above figures are inclusive of all Republican groups up to 1999 (PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, IPLO Belfast and the RIRA) Omagh is included. By 1999 the CIRA had killed no one. The figures also include all civilians deaths perpetrated by Republican’s using cover names such as Direct Action Against Drugs, Republican Action Force, Catholic Reaction Force ect.

---

The figures for the Provisional IRA are as follows. The PIRA caused the deaths of 1711 people:

512 Civilians
1012 British Security Forces
141 Republican paramilitaries
39 Loyalist Paramiltaries
7 Irish security

(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html enter "Status" as the first variable and "Organisation" as the second)

29.9% of the people killed by the PIRA were civilians.

---

Loyalist paramilitaries killed 1016 people during the Troubles:

868 Civilians
14 British Security
41 Republican paramilitaries.
93 Loyalist paramilitaries (mostly feuds, some accidents)

85.43% of people killed by Loyalists were civilians. 4.7% of the people killed by Loyalists were Republican paramilitaries. That figure includes Republicans who were ex-paramilitaries. Loyalists killed more civilians then anyone during the Troubles.

The overwhelming majority of these (684) were Catholic civilians who Loyalists intentionally and wilfully murdered. Of the remainder, the largest minority were Protestant civilians who were murdered when mistaken for being Catholics. A smaller minority were Protestant civilians killed by Loyalists for personal/criminal reasons.

The Loyalists and British Security Forces combined killed 1055 civilians during the Troubles. That's 328 more civilians then all Republican groups combined and more then double the number civilians who were killed by the PIRA.

*in their "Status summary" CAIN counts ex-paramilitaries as paramilitaries and ex-UDR/RUC as British Security.*

To get a full break down you can create cross tabulations: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/selecttabs.html

There you go Keith, now you can give your views on the record of Loyalists without derailing your Gerry Adam's thread.

Nice to see it in figures like that... and not just people guessing (and guessing in favour of their side)

Sunnyisland

I think the name of his books were 1st loyalists,& then provos, and with them he followed up with a documentary called the troubles.

Fratton Fred

OP, what are you asking? What is your view point on this?

How do you expect this debate to go?

Jelle1880

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OP, what are you asking? What is your view point on this?

How do you expect this debate to go?

Make the Loyalists look like the bad guys, I think.

Despite the fact that these days it's only the dissident republicans who still kill people by blowing them up.

BehindTheScenes

Hey Exile,

I don't really see the point of this. Is it meant to be were better than you because we didn't kill as many civilians? Well I can understand in a way. Your man that KeithAFC fella I wouldn't pay much heed to him. By reading his posts you can spot him for what he is.

The 512 civilians is very sad.

I'll exclude the soldier and loyalist killings because fair is fair if you have a gun expect to be shot at.

I haven't much else to say other than it's great the North has an evolving form of a functioning democracy.

Exile 1798

BehindTheScenes,

Simply put, I compiled these numbers in the "PIRA not guilty of war crimes - Gerry Adam" thread and thought they deserved their own. They’re informative and can serve as a useful reference point.

I don’t expect it to be new information to those knowledgeable about the Troubles, of which many posters here are. It is my experience however that many in the Republic (and hence on boards) have a significant blind spot for the extent of Loyalist terror, its range and nature.

Throughout most of the Troubles especially the 80s and 90s the focus of the Irish and British media was almost entirely on the PIRA, and the discourse I hear on the Troubles here reflects that same focus. As I mentioned in my previous post, Nationalist civilians murdered by Loyalist paramilitaries were statistically the most numerous (684) victims yet they were at the very bottom of importance as far as the media were concerned.

Throughout the Troubles the UVF & UDA/UFF would release press statements either proudly claiming the murder of innocent Catholic civilians or apologising for murdering innocent Protestants civilians they mistook for Catholics. It seems to me that many people are completely unaware of this. When we talk about all sides having done horrible things, it’s important to be clear what those things were. Otherwise such statements are mere platitudes.

Yes, you’re probably right about Keith, in fact I’m quite sure you are.

Exile 1798

realies wrote: »

I think the name of his books were 1st loyalists,& then provos, and with them he followed up with a documentary called the troubles.

This is a much more recent documentary, dealing entirely with the media's coverage of the Troubles. I think it might have been shown on UTV.

If I can find out the name I'm pretty sure it can be got on youtube.

Wolfe Tone

I think the main fact is that it is a bit rich of someone like keith to harp on about the provos killing civilians when that was the loyalist groups main aim at all times, kill the catholics.

It was never the main aim of the IRA to kill civilians. If they had the same mentality as the loyalists there would be thousands and thousands of civilian causalities rather than the majority of them being a result of botched bombings. If they wanted an Omagh every day of the week they could have done it.

The fundamental difference between the IRA etc and the loyalists was that the loyalists set out to kill civilians, that was always their aim. The IRA did not. This is the crowd who keith proudly proclaims "have not disbanded their brigades", pretty much akin to "they haven't gone away you know".

Remember, if all you wanted to do was a bit of taig bashing you could join the RUC or the British army and get paid money to do so. Only the lowest of the low joined Loyalist paramilitaries.

sollar

The figures for loyalists killing republicans and republicans killing loyalists were very low. Why were they afraid to get stuck into each other??

My view has always been of paramilitaries as a bunch of cowards running about in the dark of night.

steddyeddy

I welcome these results thanks. There is too many innaccuracies made by the general public in relation to the troubles. The republicans mainly targeted civilians didnt make any sense considering a fair chunk of the loyalist paramilitaries had the attitude "if you cant get an ira man get a taig". Messed up state theres lucky theres peace at all.

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone.

Why bomb a shopping centre if you don't want to kill civilians.

Were the people eating in Le Mons restaurant civilians? Was Ross McWhirter a civilian? Was Lord Mountbatten not a civilian as he was retired? What about the others on his boat?

It does piss me off this whole excuse making process. The IRA targeted civilians, they meant to kill them. The fact they often gave warnings mitigates that, but their ultimate intention was to terrorise civilians to further their agenda.

It makes no odds that loyalist deaths squads were indiscriminately killing people based on their faith, their henous acts don't make the IRA's less abhorrent.

Wolfe Tone

Economic target Fred.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Wolfe Tone.

Why bomb a shopping centre if you don't want to kill civilians.

Were the people eating in Le Mons restaurant civilians? Was Ross McWhirter a civilian? Was Lord Mountbatten not a civilian as he was retired? What about the others on his boat?

It does piss me off this whole excuse making process. The IRA targeted civilians, they meant to kill them. The fact they often gave warnings mitigates that, but their ultimate intention was to terrorise civilians to further their agenda.

It makes no odds that loyalist deaths squads were indiscriminately killing people based on their faith, their henous acts don't make the IRA's less abhorrent.

No it doesnt but it makes the point that both sides killed civilians instead of the usual the ira were the only bad ones in the conflict.

EDIT: it does point out that the situation at the time was messed up on both sides and as I said luckily we have peace now.

Exile 1798

sollar wrote: »

The figures for loyalists killing republicans and republicans killing loyalists were very low. Why were they afraid to get stuck into each other??

My view has always been of paramilitaries as a bunch of cowards running about in the dark of night.

When I read these figures I was surprised at how low they were as well, I expected them to be higher.

CAIN was last updated in 2001 and since then there are about half a dozen cases that have became disputed (over whether certain people were paramilitaries or not) on both sides, but that doesn't really effect the overall picture.

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Economic target Fred.

Don't talk rubbish, how can a pub or a restaurant be classed as an economic target.

They are civilian targets and as such would constitute either an act of terror, or a war crime.

Wolfe Tone

Exile 1798 wrote: »

When I read these figures I was surprised at how low they were as well, I expected them to be higher.

CAIN was last updated in 2001 and since then there are about half a dozen cases that have became disputed (over whether certain people were paramilitaries or not) on both sides, but that doesn't really effect the overall picture.

Sure only a few weeks ago prominent loyalist paramilitaries where stabbing each other.

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Don't talk rubbish, how can a pub or a restaurant be classed as an economic target.

They are civilian targets and as such would constitute either an act of terror, or a war crime.

You did say shopping centers Fred... Bombing town centers to cause economic damage tends to be a tactic in war time.

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You did say shopping centers Fred... Bombing town centers to cause economic damage tends to be a tactic in war time.

No, no it isn't at all. An economic target would be one that prevents a belligerent from waging war. Last I heard the British army don't tend to shop at Argos.

Wolfe Tone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, no it isn't at all. An economic target would be one that prevents a belligerent from waging war. Last I heard the British army don't tend to shop at Argos.

It worked pretty well for the IRA didn't it? Bishopsgate etc.

In all honesty Fred, I think we both know each others opinions at this stage, is there much point in having this conversation? Just to be clear thats not me "taking the ball and going home" Its just that we have done it so many times already.

Fratton Fred

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It worked pretty well for the IRA didn't it? Bishopsgate etc.

In all honesty Fred, I think we both know each others opinions at this stage, is there much point in having this conversation? Just to be clear thats not me "taking the ball and going home" Its just that we have done it so many times already.

Bishopsgate is completely different to a shopping centre. As despicable as I think it may be, I believe there was a good argument for that bomb as it strikes right at the heart of the country's finances. Closing down the square mile would have a lot more devastating effects than shutting down the Arndale centre, whilst also having far less civilians around (on a Sunday) to put at risk.

I don't take your last sentence as a cop out, just pointing out the obvious. We've danced this dance before.

Jelle1880

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You did say shopping centers Fred... Bombing town centers to cause economic damage tends to be a tactic in war time.

It might be a tactic, but that doesn't mean it's not a war crime.

If the IRA would have limited their bombs to army barracks or the likes then it wouldn't be a war crime, but that doesn't count as soon as you deliberately target civilians.

OS119

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Bishopsgate is completely different to a shopping centre. As despicable as I think it may be, I believe there was a good argument for that bomb as it strikes right at the heart of the country's finances. Closing down the square mile would have a lot more devastating effects than shutting down the Arndale centre, whilst also having far less civilians around (on a Sunday) to put at risk.

i have to agree with FF, WT's argument about economic targetting (entirely legitimate in my view) covers Bishopsgate, Canary Wharf etc - attacks on targets that have a high economic value and that do not result in uneccesary civilian casualties, it does not cover attacks on no-mark northern towns at 3pm on a saturday afternoon that kill children and cost the British Government £12.60 to replace a litter bin.

now you can easily make an argument that bombing a crowded shopping centre and killing 20 people causes a much bigger economic 'kill' than bombing that same shopping centre at 2am on monday morning after giving a 1hr coded bomb warning, and is therefore a better economic targetting doctrine than the empty street, but it kind of pisses all over the claim to 'not target civilians'.

Can'tseeme

Exile 1798 wrote: »

This is a much more recent documentary, dealing entirely with the media's coverage of the Troubles. I think it might have been shown on UTV.

If I can find out the name I'm pretty sure it can be got on youtube.

I know the documentary you're talking about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2011/02_february/04/others.shtml

I think it was Bill Neely that made the point that there was a heirarchy in the way victims were being reported during the conflict and that Catholic civilians were at the bottom of the list.

KeithAFC

I have to say, I am rather shocked at this thread. Not that it is a loyalist thread. I expected a loyalist thread. The fact that it is just posting numbers of loyalist murders, which we all know happened and you won’t get much of an argument against that.
The PIRA and Gerry Adams thread was about specific type of murders and was about Gerry Adams comments in relation to them and war crimes. It was a valid discussion.

This doesn’t seem to focus on anything specific. If it was the Shankill butchers, then fair enough. A really good discussion could happen but this thread seems to lack that.

Also, I am amazed at people actually talking about agendas and saying we all know what I am. Of course, I am a Loyalist. I didn’t think I ever tried to hide that.

Just because I am a loyalist/Ulster Nationalist, don’t mean I can’t start threads on the PIRA or anything to do with the Troubles.

steddyeddy

It shows the loyalists targetted civilians which reduces the arguement that the ira killed civilians within the context. It certainly surprised me to an extent. It paints a completely different picture of the troubles to most people. It also paints a new light on the civil rights issue.

RMD

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Remember, if all you wanted to do was a bit of taig bashing you could join the RUC or the British army and get paid money to do so. Only the lowest of the low joined Loyalist paramilitaries.

That was the major problem with the security forces. A clever Loyalist joined the B specials or the UDR, a thoughtless Loyalist joined the paramilitaries.

The main difference that separates the numbers is the PIRA targeted the state and the security forces, the Loyalist simply targeted civilians as they weren't "at war" with anyone else other than Republicans.

For anyone who is interested in The Troubles, the Cain website is a fantastic information source and arguably the best research project collected on The Troubles

Jelle1880

steddyeddy wrote: »

It shows the loyalists targetted civilians which reduces the arguement that the ira killed civilians within the context. It certainly surprised me to an extent. It paints a completely different picture of the troubles to most people. It also paints a new light on the civil rights issue.

Probably because the Loyalists didn't see Ireland (The country) as the enemy, where as the republicans saw the British state institutions as part the enemy.

It doesn't change anything by the way.
Those numbers have been available for years now, everyone knows that the Loyalist groups killed civilians purely for religion or if they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (Like protestants mistaken for catholics).

The issue here is now that this is used by some to portray the IRA and it's splinter groups as some bunch of good guys who didn't target civilians.
Which is a load of crap.

Fratton Fred

RMD wrote: »

That was the major problem with the security forces. A clever Loyalist joined the B specials or the UDR, a thoughtless Loyalist joined the paramilitaries.

The main difference that separates the numbers is the PIRA targeted the state and the security forces, the Loyalist simply targeted civilians as they weren't "at war" with anyone else other than Republicans.

For anyone who is interested in The Troubles, the Cain website is a fantastic information source and arguably the best research project collected on The Troubles

Is there some sort of mental block that prevents people from accepting that the PIRA did target civilians or is it the usual republican case of say something enough times and it must be true?

RMD

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is there some sort of mental block that prevents people from accepting that the PIRA did target civilians or is it the usual republican case of say something enough times and it must be true?

Read through my posts in this and the military forum, you'll find I'm anything but a Republican, I'm more a "West Brit" by their standards. I never claimed they didn't target civilians, the Enniskillen, Claudy, and Bloody Friday bombings are example of which to name a few.

Bottle_of_Smoke

To play devils advocate here.

It wasn't quite "just killing them for being catholic"

The IRA were an secretive guerrilla organisation. Therefore loyalists didn't exactly have many specific targets.

Catholics/nationalists were seen as the wider community from which the IRA were a part. The tactic of killing civilians was seen as a retaliation for IRA attacks and to warn sympathetic catholic communities that the IRA couldn't protect them.

Remember all those killed from UDR/RUC/Prison officers etc. would have had friends and family within Protestant communities. Those people got angry and sought revenge.

It is often said it would be naive not to expect a republican uprising given the treatment of nationalists in northern ireland - which I wholeheartedly agree with. However it would also be naive not to expect revenge attacks against that uprising.

The IRA were of course more professional disciplined and generally far more like a real army than any of the loyalist groups. Loyalists saw the killings as a means to an end. There's no real point comparing one to the other.

Meh - don't think I'm coming across well here. The BBC documentary "loyalists" is worth a watch. On youtube.

Wolfe Tone

In that vein BoS was it not equally obvious that such actions would simply make more people join the IRA?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Looking at it rationally yes - but realistically probably didn't give it much thought until they were sitting in a cell on a murder charge.

Also for some reason I get the impression the likes of Bloody Sunday and other state violence was a much bigger recruitment force than loyalist attacks

Wolfe Tone

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Looking at it rationally yes - but realistically probably didn't give it much thought until they were sitting in a cell on a murder charge.

Also for some reason I get the impression the likes of Bloody Sunday and other state violence was a much bigger recruitment force than loyalist attacks

Sure werent Loyalist attacks the catalyst for the return of the IRA? Bombay street a prime example.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Sure werent Loyalist attacks the catalyst for the return of the IRA? Bombay street a prime example.

In that case yes. Though that was different in that it was a mass pogrom. I'm not saying they weren't a factor but the big recruitment incidents seemed to be bloody sunday/hunger strikes and shoot to kills like loughall

We'll never know for sure of course. and perhaps you are completely correct but I'm more commenting on why they carried out the attacks not whether the attacks were a good idea from their point of view.

steddyeddy

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Probably because the Loyalists didn't see Ireland (The country) as the enemy, where as the republicans saw the British state institutions as part the enemy.

It doesn't change anything by the way.
Those numbers have been available for years now, everyone knows that the Loyalist groups killed civilians purely for religion or if they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (Like protestants mistaken for catholics).

The issue here is now that this is used by some to portray the IRA and it's splinter groups as some bunch of good guys who didn't target civilians.
Which is a load of crap.

I did nothing of the sort I pointed to them as the best of a bad bunch and an understandle reaction to state discrimination.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is there some sort of mental block that prevents people from accepting that the PIRA did target civilians or is it the usual republican case of say something enough times and it must be true?

I do think that they by their actions targetted civilians indirectly.

Dudess

A thread specifically about the PIRA is a thread specifically about the PIRA - non mention of the fact that there were despicable murderers on the other side isn't a lack of acknowledgement that there were despicable murderers on the other side. And the presence of one doesn't lessen how heinous the atrocities of the other were. Lives were destroyed by grief, wounds deepened - end results the same, no matter what the politics behind them.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Make the Loyalists look like the bad guys, I think.

Well it's not like the paramilitaries weren't...

Despite the fact that these days it's only the dissident republicans who still kill people by blowing them up.

And you're doing the same thing as the OP is doing - while your last point is true, it doesn't change the fact that loyalist paramilitaries were indeed "bad guys" also.

Jelle1880

steddyeddy wrote: »

I did nothing of the sort I pointed to them as the best of a bad bunch and an understandle reaction to state discrimination.

Which is still a load of crap

Dudess: I maybe should have said 'the only bad guys'

steddyeddy

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Which is still a load of crap

Dudess: I maybe should have said 'the only bad guys'

How is it a load of crap?

EDIT: Ill clarify my point I dont think they were good guys. I think civil rights movements was a logical reaction to state discrimination and the following violence in reaction to an attempt to get civil rights was always going to be met with violence that has historical precedent.

Hannibal

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why bomb a shopping centre if you don't want to kill civilians.

Were the people eating in Le Mons restaurant civilians? Was Ross McWhirter a civilian? Was Lord Mountbatten not a civilian as he was retired? What about the others on his boat?

It does piss me off this whole excuse making process. The IRA targeted civilians, they meant to kill them. The fact they often gave warnings mitigates that, but their ultimate intention was to terrorise civilians to further their agenda.

It makes no odds that loyalist deaths squads were indiscriminately killing people based on their faith, their henous acts don't make the IRA's less abhorrent.

The bombing on Corporation St in Manchester in 1996 caused roughly £1bn worth of damage while killing nobody.
Canary Wharf in 1996 caused £90m worth of damage while only killing two people.
If the IRA targeted civilians they could have killed hundreds in Manchester, they didn't. They caused economic damage in Britain by bringing the war there. These two bombing can be both deemed a success as it cost a lot of money to the British exchequer and made them realise that the ceasefire wouldn't last forever if they didn't get their act together.



Unlike the loyalist death squad who tried to bomb a pub in Dublin in 1994 with the help of colluding security forces, and only for a brave Volunteer interupted them and gave his life they could have killed and maimed 200 people. Their aim was to bomb the gable end of a pub bringing down the upstaits function room onto the downstairs lounge.

KeithAFC

Dotsey wrote: »

The bombing on Corporation St in Manchester in 1996 caused roughly £1bn worth of damage while killing nobody.
Canary Wharf in 1996 caused £90m worth of damage while only killing two people.
If the IRA targeted civilians they could have killed hundreds in Manchester, they didn't. They caused economic damage in Britain by bringing the war there. These two bombing can be both deemed a success as it cost a lot of money to the British exchequer and made them realise that the ceasefire wouldn't last forever if they didn't get their act together.



Unlike the loyalist death squad who tried to bomb a pub in Dublin in 1994 with the help of colluding security forces, and only for a brave Volunteer interupted them and gave his life they could have killed and maimed 200 people. Their aim was to bomb the gable end of a pub bringing down the upstaits function room onto the downstairs lounge.

It only killed two people, i suppose that is fine. 90 million worth of damage, lets focus on that. Lets just ignore the two poor people murdered.

Fred made a fantastic post in regards to the PIRA tactics.

Dudess

It's a bit grim that because the numbers of slaughtered were low, that makes things somewhat "all right"... :-/

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

It only killed two people, i suppose that is fine. 90 million worth of damage, lets focus on that. Lets just ignore the two poor people murdered.

Fred made a fantastic post in regards to the PIRA tactics.

For someone who spends so much time bashing SF and the provos, and seen as this is a thread about loyalists, and seen as you so absolutely abhor civilians being killed, I would like for you to categorically state your opinion on loyalist paramilitaries, you have hinted at admiration and support, you need to clarify your position before anyone can take posts such as the above seriously.

KeithAFC

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

For someone who spends so much time bashing SF and the provos, and seen as this is a thread about loyalists, and seen as you so absolutely abhor civilians being killed, I would like for you to categorically state your opinion on loyalist paramilitaries, you have hinted at admiration and support, you need to clarify your position before anyone can take posts such as the above seriously.

I think I have made my point on Loyalist paramilitaries a number of times on here and some of the awful things they did. Being the shankill butchers or the greysteel massacre. I think most people can only condemn actions by paramilitaries in regards to the killings they have done.
But didn’t you say brave PIRA volunteers a few days ago, do support the PIRA in what they did?

Wolfe Tone

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think I have made my point on Loyalist paramilitaries a number of times on here and some of the awful things they did. Being the shankill butchers or the greysteel massacre. I think most people can only condemn actions by paramilitaries in regards to the killings they have done.
But didn’t you say brave PIRA volunteers a few days ago, do support the PIRA in what they did?

So you would condemn Loyalist paramilitaries in their entirety then? Seen, as the figures show, the vast vast majority of those they killed where "non combatants"?

Hannibal

I think the difference is the IRA was at war with the British state and security forces whereas for the loyalists it was all about secterianism. The CAIN statistics back that up.

steddyeddy

Dotsey wrote: »

I think the difference is the IRA was at war with the British state and security forces whereas for the loyalists it was all about secterianism. The CAIN statistics back that up.

I agree completley.