Was IRA terror comparable to the ISIS terror you see today?

[Slog]

I will admit I dont know much about the terror caused by IRA apart from killing Mountbatten. But often on this forum and among much of the Pakistani community you see people equating ISIS terror to the IRA terror and pointing out the apparent double standards of the West's response to both.

So are they similar in nature, scope and size?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I can't recall that much about it, but for the British it was probably worse than ISIS in that the IRA were far better organised and were thought to have real support from some pockets in the US although all that would have been unofficial of course.

The IRA were quite savvy as well, they would plant bombs then tip off the authorities through anonymous phone calls IIRC, that way showing their power and reach, but not actually causing widespread revulsion among the English. Maybe that was why they toned down the violence, because in the earlier years when they did bomb London, there was real hatred built up and stoked by the tabloids against the IRA.

 

[IMMY69]

I remember my university final exam being affected by the Bishops Gate bombing (1993/1994 if I recall correctly).

The old Baltic Exchange building being bombed.

Having to drive through police check points whenever driving in to the city.

Harrods bombing and multiple false bomb alerts which lead to evacuations.

Those are my personal experiences of the IRA Terror.

 

[IMMY69]

ISIS terror, so far, is incomparable in terms of the scale and devastation of the IRA bombings.

The Islamist Terror is carried out by some deranged individuals without any real cause and it's hard to reason with these people. What can you do when a nutter thinks he's going to go straight to heaven by driving in to innocent people and then start attacking people with a kitchen knife?

 

[IMMY69]

However, I would add that the 7/7 bombings were certainly comparable to the IRA.

I know people that were using the underground when it happened and the whole episode left a huge impressions on me.

To be honest it still does. Now when I use the tube and someone is the same carriage acting strange and carrying a rucksack all sorts of things go through my mind.

At one time I was sitting there reading the Metro and a muslim man with a bag came on to the same carriage. He was reciting some prayers and I can tell you that quiet a few people, including myself, were feeling pretty nervous on the tube.

 

[90MPH]

I will admit I dont know much about the terror caused by IRA apart from killing Mountbatten. But often on this forum and among much of the Pakistani community you see people equating ISIS terror to the IRA terror and pointing out the apparent double standards of the West's response to both.

So are they similar in nature, scope and size?

No, they are not comparable in any way whether it was political aims, tactics and even the terrorist attacks itself.

The IRA did kill civilians no doubt but generally they tried to avoid killing them as they generally wanted to target the police/army and government officials while the bombs caused destruction it was for economic purposes - they gave coded warnings before their attacks.

The Real IRA that splintered away was violent in their tactics.

ISIs do not have realistic ambitions or political goals and their tactics are so brutal that negotiotions with such an organisation are impossible.

I wouldn't even call them terrorists but religious fanatics with no purpose.

 

[Markhor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32326431

This article neatly explains some of the parallels. The IRA launched attacks on the mainland with regularity in the 70s, 80s and 90s, killing a far greater amount of UK civilians than these jihadis but life went on and you didn't get the 24/7 fearmongering that you do today. There are some key differences. The IRA was set up in the late 1960s only after peaceful protests for Catholic rights were met with bullets and firebombs from the RUC and Loyalist militias. Armed struggle was a last resort to protect a community being treated marginally better than the blacks of the Jim Crow South and apartheid South Africa.

Maybe the Sunni insurgents will argue that they too were forced into violence in order to protect themselves from oppression from the majority. They'll point to the aftermath of the 2003 invasion and how Sunnis were disenfrachised by de-Baathification - but ISIS have repressed as many, if not more Sunnis, than they claim to protect. Sunni cities across Iraq and Syria have been annihilated as a result of their actuons.

Also the IRA was not a homogenous entity, there were numerous factions, some of them more radical and took it too far. But the IRA's intentions were usually to attack legitimate British military targets. That's not to say innocents were not killed, the IRA committed some appalling acts of violence - but all sides had blood on their hands during The Troubles including the British Army who notably murdered 13 unarmed Catholics on Bloody Sunday in 1972 which really drove IRA recruitment.

ISIS on the other hand have an agenda for extermination of minorities including Yazidis and Christians and their violence has by no means been targeted with civilians routinely executed under their savage rule. As for size, ISIS being an international organisation have far more footsoldiers than the IRA which were a local movement.

Unlike ISIS, the IRA had realistic political demands and were willing to engage in dialogue. The IRA's agenda was not so much religious (though religious divisions were part of the conflict) but political. They eventually laid down their weapons and accepted political means as a way of righting what they see as a historical wrong which was the partition of the island of Ireland by the British in 1922.

 

[Markhor]

However, I would add that the 7/7 bombings were certainly comparable to the IRA.

I know people that were using the underground when it happened and the whole episode left a huge impressions on me.

To be honest it still does. Now when I use the tube and someone is the same carriage acting strange and carrying a rucksack all sorts of things go through my mind.

At one time I was sitting there reading the Metro and a muslim man with a bag came on to the same carriage. He was reciting some prayers and I can tell you that quiet a few people, including myself, were feeling pretty nervous on the tube.

I was on the London Underground a month before 7/7 on a tourist trip. There but for the grace of God go I.

I will admit I dont know much about the terror caused by IRA apart from killing Mountbatten.

Quick point on that now that you mention it. Let's just say that was karma for Partition. The IRA showed the same callous disregard for human life as Mountbatten did for millions of people three decades earlier.

 

[Adil_94]

in the British context IRA was much more effective at attacks and the list of IRA attacks in the U.K from the 70s until the 90s was around 15-20 although the casualty rate wasnt that high and there was more financial damage i think the highest casualty due to an IRA attack was 21 in the Birmingham bombings .

The difference with Islamist terrorism like Al Qaeda and ISIS is that they are trans national groups that target multiple countries in the Middle East in the West in Africa in South Asia. Unlike the IRA conflict which was very much a localised one. IRA is more similar to groups like the PLO and Eta than ISIS and AQ.

 

[Slog]

I was on the London Underground a month before 7/7 on a tourist trip. There but for the grace of God go I.



Quick point on that now that you mention it. Let's just say that was karma for Partition. The IRA showed the same callous disregard for human life as Mountbatten did for millions of people three decades earlier.

So why is it so that you see commentary in the UK where the impression being given is that Isis terror attacks are the first of their kind and something the country hasn't combated before. Are there any data points to suggest that there was something akin to Islamophobia with the Irish peopl living in mainland Britain

Also anything of such nature in rest of Western Europe?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So why is it so that you see commentary in the UK where the impression being given is that Isis terror attacks are the first of their kind and something the country hasn't combated before. Are there any data points to suggest that there was something akin to Islamophobia with the Irish peopl living in mainland Britain

Also anything of such nature in rest of Western Europe?

I am pretty sure that the Irish people themselves were never equated with the violence, the media was quite careful to differentiate the IRA and it's leading figures from the populace, if anything they were portrayed as being unrepresentative of the common man.

In any case, an Irishman walking around England wouldn't look any different from the average Englishman, you would only be able to tell when he opened his mouth from his accent. No doubt there would have been some unkind jokes thrown around at the time if you did have an Irish accent though.

 

[Robert]

So why is it so that you see commentary in the UK where the impression being given is that Isis terror attacks are the first of their kind and something the country hasn't combated before.

The IRA tended to try to minimise casualties among those they consider innocent. They would often phone to say approximately where a device was. They would attack military targets, prominent politicians, RUC officers and so on. Though they were happy to bomb pubs in Loyalist areas of Derry and Belfast.

Jihadis don't seem to care who they kill. Muslim or otherwise.

 

[Robert]

I am pretty sure that the Irish people themselves were never equated with the violence

There was a lot of hatred from some English of the Irish in those days.

 

[Pure Evil]

I will admit I dont know much about the terror caused by IRA apart from killing Mountbatten. But often on this forum and among much of the Pakistani community you see people equating ISIS terror to the IRA terror and pointing out the apparent double standards of the West's response to both.

So are they similar in nature, scope and size?

The IRA was fighting for independence. Many in the British public were not in favour of forcibly holding onto territory and wanted to move away from the imperialist past. So they did enjoy the sympathy of the public till they started blowing up children and horses. They lost much of their sympathy, acts which the IRA later regretted (does not mean they were justified)

ISIS on the other hand has no real ideology besides killing and maiming innocents. They subscribe to a backwards ideology and you are not sure they even enjoy public support even in the areas they operate.

It's laughable and sad that certain posters here equate ISIS with IRA. It's more to justify their narrative of the double standards and is not really accepted beyond the closet ISIS supporters or conspiracy theorists on this forum.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The IRA was fighting for independence. Many in the British public were not in favour of forcibly holding onto territory and wanted to move away from the imperialist past. So they did enjoy the sympathy of the public till they started blowing up children and horses. They lost much of their sympathy, acts which the IRA later regretted (does not mean they were justified)

ISIS on the other hand has no real ideology besides killing and maiming innocents. They subscribe to a backwards ideology and you are not sure they even enjoy public support even in the areas they operate.

It's laughable and sad that certain posters here equate ISIS with IRA. It's more to justify their narrative of the double standards and is not really accepted beyond the closet ISIS supporters or conspiracy theorists on this forum.

I must have missed something, what are the double standards, and which posters are you referring to as closet ISIS supporters and conspiracy theorists on this forum? IRA and ISIS both indulged in terrorism where innocent people lost their lives at the end of the day.

 

[Adil_94]

[MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] with all due respect the goals of ISIS and IRA are different. IRA wanted the British presence in Northern Ireland to leave and wanted to unite with the Republic. However the power in NI was in the hands of the Unionists who were loyal to Britain and feared Catholic Irish hegemony if N.I unified with Ireland. They marginalised Catholics in N.I economically socially and politically and that led to the formation of the IRA to combat Loyalists and make the British withdraw from N.I. But IRA eventually joined the peace process and its leaders joined the electoral process after the Good Friday Agreement.

Is there any chance of ISIS doing that of making peace with their neighbours resorting to diplomacy instead of violence their whole ideology is based on a desire for a trans national Caliphate that eventually would expand across the Middle East they have no desire for peace.

Also ISIS dont believe in democracy or liberty or any values like that. IRA is more comparable to groups like Hezbollah and PLO that were engaged in local conflicts.

 

[90MPH]

The IRA was fighting for independence. Many in the British public were not in favour of forcibly holding onto territory and wanted to move away from the imperialist past. So they did enjoy the sympathy of the public till they started blowing up children and horses. They lost much of their sympathy, acts which the IRA later regretted (does not mean they were justified)

ISIS on the other hand has no real ideology besides killing and maiming innocents. They subscribe to a backwards ideology and you are not sure they even enjoy public support even in the areas they operate.

It's laughable and sad that certain posters here equate ISIS with IRA. It's more to justify their narrative of the double standards and is not really accepted beyond the closet ISIS supporters or conspiracy theorists on this forum.

It's actually laughable that Clearly you don't know much about the IRA. They never had any British sympathy to begin with. They always had the sympathy from the republicans in Northern Ireland because it was they who felt violence was a last resort that was needed and it worked because the British government was ignoring their plight for decades before that.

The British government and their policies played a big part in creating a breeding ground dissident groups like the IRA to flourish - Bloody Sunday was a triggering point.

Lastly on IS the vast majority don't care or don't want anything to do with ISIS because like already said on the reasons mentioned.

That doesn't mean that it should be conflicted with other causes around the world be it Kashmir, Palestine, Ukraine, Sri Lanka etc. Most of the movements don't just spring out of thin air but because of reactions to brutal policies of governments/armies and they have every right to resist.

 

[IMMY69]

The IRA was fighting for independence. Many in the British public were not in favour of forcibly holding onto territory and wanted to move away from the imperialist past. So they did enjoy the sympathy of the public till they started blowing up children and horses. They lost much of their sympathy, acts which the IRA later regretted (does not mean they were justified)

ISIS on the other hand has no real ideology besides killing and maiming innocents. They subscribe to a backwards ideology and you are not sure they even enjoy public support even in the areas they operate.

It's laughable and sad that certain posters here equate ISIS with IRA. It's more to justify their narrative of the double standards and is not really accepted beyond the closet ISIS supporters or conspiracy theorists on this forum.

I find your last paragraph extremely offensive. How dare you say this!

 

[Robert]

The British government and their policies played a big part in creating a breeding ground dissident groups like the IRA to flourish - Bloody Sunday was a triggering point.

Bear in mind that the Mayor of Belfast asked the Heath Government to send troops to protect the Catholic minority from Loyalist persecution.

Anyway the IRA are much older than that. See Easter Rising 1916. Read up on Patrick Henry Pearse, Eamon de Valera and Michael Collins.

 

[90MPH]

Bear in mind that the Mayor of Belfast asked the Heath Government to send troops to protect the Catholic minority from Loyalist persecution.

Anyway the IRA are much older than that. See Easter Rising 1916. Read up on Patrick Henry Pearse, Eamon de Valera and Michael Collins.

Yes I agree it's a longer history and the subject is complicated. However the point is every conflict is different and the reason why armed groups/terrorists have spawned depends on those particular circumstances at the time. Everyone played a part on the Irish conflict, not just the republicans.

ISIS was spawned mainly because of the disastrous Iraq war but they will be gone within a few years because you need support within a population block for it to keep going. In the end they killed far too
Many of their own that was final nail in the coffin.

 

[Mamoon]

Not comparable. ISIS is far, far worse.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Bear in mind that the Mayor of Belfast asked the Heath Government to send troops to protect the Catholic minority from Loyalist persecution.

Anyway the IRA are much older than that. See Easter Rising 1916. Read up on Patrick Henry Pearse, Eamon de Valera and Michael Collins.

Technically the organisation the 1916 Rising leaders were members of was the IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) and not the IRA. The IRA formed shortly afterwards after the Anglo-Irish Treaty when the IRB members split between pro and anti-treaty (If I remember my history correctly)

 

[Robert]

Technically the organisation the 1916 Rising leaders were members of was the IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) and not the IRA. The IRA formed shortly afterwards after the Anglo-Irish Treaty when the IRB members split between pro and anti-treaty (If I remember my history correctly)

Sure, the IRA began in 1922 I believe. They shot National Army commander Michael Collins during the Irish Civil War.

Curiously, after Collins had fought the British Army and assassinated several intelligence operatives, he was supported against the IRA by a British gun-running operation.

 

[Slog]

Not comparable. ISIS is far, far worse.

What are you basing this on?

Like do you have a good handle on what IRA did and making an informed call or just saying because you feel that is the case

I mean you most probably maybe correct but just curious whether you are actually knowledgeable about the subject to make that definite statement.

 

[shaz619]

It's a great thread because it puts people's hypocrisies in the spotlight, the IRA always seem to get a pass for what they did; who cares about their reasoning or targets, they murdered in equal measure if not far worse and caused the loss of human life.

 

[Slog]

The IRA tended to try to minimise casualties among those they consider innocent. They would often phone to say approximately where a device was. They would attack military targets, prominent politicians, RUC officers and so on. Though they were happy to bomb pubs in Loyalist areas of Derry and Belfast.

Jihadis don't seem to care who they kill. Muslim or otherwise.

Do you think if the media was as big and vast back then as today, IRA would have been condemned with much more force.

Mind you a lot of the funding for the IRA did come from the Irish Americans. Was that ever a sticking point between US and UK?

 

[s28]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Blair making McGuinness sound like prophet of peace?The IRA killed more UK citizens, including children, than all Islamist groups together.</p>— Andy McNab (@The_Real_McNab) <a href="https://twitter.com/The_Real_McNab/status/844114274394001408">21 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[shaz619]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Blair making McGuinness sound like prophet of peace?The IRA killed more UK citizens, including children, than all Islamist groups together.</p>— Andy McNab (@The_Real_McNab) <a href="https://twitter.com/The_Real_McNab/status/844114274394001408">21 March 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Exactly but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were white and of a faith other then Islam, isn't that right Magneto!

 

[Robert]

Do you think if the media was as big and vast back then as today, IRA would have been condemned with much more force.

Well, there was no social media, but the IRA was universally reviled in the UK.

Mind you a lot of the funding for the IRA did come from the Irish Americans. Was that ever a sticking point between US and UK?

That tended to come from the Boston and Chicago Irish-Americans. Britons tended to be angry with individual Americans rather than the USA as a whole.

 

[Yossarian]

Not comparable. ISIS is far, far worse.

It all depends upon one's point of view, especially how close one becomes to being a potential victim. I happened to be in Manchester when the IRA bombed the Arndale Centre using a powerful 1,500-kilogram (3,300 lb) truck bomb. An hour and a half before the bomb exploded I had walked through the Marks & Spencer store (the truck was parked outside the store).

Whereas you have probably witnessed first hand (probably on more than one occasion) the death and destruction caused by the likes of Taliban's and others bombings in Pakistan.

 

[Yossarian]

So why is it so that you see commentary in the UK where the impression being given is that Isis terror attacks are the first of their kind and something the country hasn't combated before. Are there any data points to suggest that there was something akin to Islamophobia with the Irish peopl living in mainland Britain

Also anything of such nature in rest of Western Europe?

24/7 News channel competing with each other as well as needing something to transmit on a continuous basis, hence the sensational 'Breaking News' on a constant basis.

Nowadays, needing 'news' to fill the time, on a quiet day the 24/7 news channels will even sensationalise as 'Breaking News' if a petty criminal injures someone while he's in the process of committing a shop lifting robbery in some remote village in Scotland. This will cause old ladies and shopkeepers, from the north of Scotland to the South East of England and to the west coast of Wales, to start worrying about a violent thief on the loose.

The news channels will send teams of reporters and cameramen to interview everyone in the village and the surrounding countryside.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Do you think if the media was as big and vast back then as today, IRA would have been condemned with much more force.

Mind you a lot of the funding for the IRA did come from the Irish Americans. Was that ever a sticking point between US and UK?

No, in Britain we have always tried to push the 'special relationship' angle with the USA. I'm not sure to whose benefit that is, but it maybe just because Britain is culturally closer to America than most eastern countries, similarly I would imagine with Australia, despite the historical enmity which is probably not relevant these days. Americans used to have a rock sized chip on their shoulder a few decades back, that's probably faded in the last century as they have basically become the big brother in the relationship by some distance.

 

[Mamoon]

What are you basing this on?

Like do you have a good handle on what IRA did and making an informed call or just saying because you feel that is the case

I mean you most probably maybe correct but just curious whether you are actually knowledgeable about the subject to make that definite statement.

My knowledge on this matter is not deep enough for me to add something that hasn't been addressed already, which is why I didn't feel the need to elaborate. However, based on my cursory readings on the IRA, I have come to the conclusion that ISIS is far worse. The BBC article posted by Markhor does a good job in my view.

 

[Slog]

No, in Britain we have always tried to push the 'special relationship' angle with the USA. I'm not sure to whose benefit that is, but it maybe just because Britain is culturally closer to America than most eastern countries, similarly I would imagine with Australia, despite the historical enmity which is probably not relevant these days. Americans used to have a rock sized chip on their shoulder a few decades back, that's probably faded in the last century as they have basically become the big brother in the relationship by some distance.

US has been UK's daddy since 1950s when it reconstructed the country

 

[the Great Khan]

from a British context the IRA were much much worse. i mean they removed bins from railway stations because the IRA could drop parcel bombs in them. The IRA killed a member of the royal family, nearly killed the british govt including margaret thatcher, blew up the centre of Manchester, killed men women and children from all communities. They created a truly fearful atmosphere across the isles during the troubles. ISIS in the british context is nothing in comparison...

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

from a British context the IRA were much much worse. i mean they removed bins from railway stations because the IRA could drop parcel bombs in them. The IRA killed a member of the royal family, nearly killed the british govt including margaret thatcher, blew up the centre of Manchester, killed men women and children from all communities. They created a truly fearful atmosphere across the isles during the troubles. ISIS in the british context is nothing in comparison...

I would tend to agree. Mamoon probably sees ISIS as more relevant with them being louder globally, but for the British, the IRA were much closer to home, not to mention they had some dubious support from abroad from powerful allies.

For the Brits, ISIS are probably seen more as a potential problem. Their mode of attack is at the moment very crude and unsophisticated in comparison to the IRA. The Lee Rigby killer and the current fellow Masood, have turned out to be little more than deranged individuals with no real logistic support to speak of.

 

[IMMY69]

I was under the impression that when comparing Isis to IRA we were only talking about the UK.

Having lived in London through the IRA times I think the IRA threat was far worse then what we are seeing now with ISIS.

 

[Saeed]

I would say it's pointless. You're worse, no you're worse is just point scoring. It is not going to make life any better for people targeted by IRA or Baghdadi's group. Also there are no double standards by west. They focus more on this issue because incompetence of local governments makes the threat look bigger and terrorists want to target all western countries. IRA only focused on Britain so obviously other western countries couldn't care less about them.

 

[hussain123]

Any organisation that takes to violent means for a just cause liking kicking the occupying state out can never be equated with a sheer evil like daesh takfiris.

 

[QazzarFan]

from a British context the IRA were much much worse. i mean they removed bins from railway stations because the IRA could drop parcel bombs in them. The IRA killed a member of the royal family, nearly killed the british govt including margaret thatcher, blew up the centre of Manchester, killed men women and children from all communities. They created a truly fearful atmosphere across the isles during the troubles. ISIS in the british context is nothing in comparison...

lol ISIS is not even human in any context cannot be compared to any other rebel group in human history. ISIS are animals for what they did to Yazidis..raping a child hundreds of times because she's not a Muslim and pass her around like a piece of meat? DID IRA do that TGK uncle? Or you can't help yourself but defend these vicious animals just because they're fighting the holy war?

 

[Donal Cozzie]

IRA obviously posed far more of a threat and almost certainly caused more fear considering the proximity of the IRA to the UK, the scale and frequency of attacks and so on.

So in one way I'd argue the IRA certainly created more fear and caused more damage than ISIS, however the IRA's demands were actually fairly reasonable (bar the whole "kick all Brits out", bit, bar that that their calls for voting rights, equality and fairness in the North were fairly understandable tbh, whereas ISIS are just lunatics who target people indiscriminately. Most of the IRA tried to target people deemed legitimate targets, emphasis on the most part, whereas with ISIS any nutter can grab an axe and attack the first guy he sees.).

 

[Muhammad10]

lol ISIS is not even human in any context cannot be compared to any other rebel group in human history. ISIS are animals for what they did to Yazidis..raping a child hundreds of times because she's not a Muslim and pass her around like a piece of meat? DID IRA do that TGK uncle? Or you can't help yourself but defend these vicious animals just because they're fighting the holy war?

Where was he defending anything? He was speaking purely from a British perspective, but you had to chime in with your bigoted comment. Very classy, indeed.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

IRA obviously posed far more of a threat and almost certainly caused more fear considering the proximity of the IRA to the UK, the scale and frequency of attacks and so on.

So in one way I'd argue the IRA certainly created more fear and caused more damage than ISIS, however the IRA's demands were actually fairly reasonable (bar the whole "kick all Brits out", bit, bar that that their calls for voting rights, equality and fairness in the North were fairly understandable tbh, whereas ISIS are just lunatics who target people indiscriminately. Most of the IRA tried to target people deemed legitimate targets, emphasis on the most part, whereas with ISIS any nutter can grab an axe and attack the first guy he sees.).

I would agree with this. Even if you disagreed with the IRA and their tactics, you could at least see they had a cause which some Irish would feel was legitimate. With ISIS it's difficult to see what their cause could possibly be from any ideological viewpoint other than headbanging nihilists or agents provocateur.

 

[MenInG]

A journalist has been shot dead in Londonderry in what police are treating as a "terrorist incident".

Dissident republicans are being blamed for killing 29-year-old Lyra McKee during rioting after police searches in Derry's Creggan area on Thursday night.

Petrol bombs were also thrown at police Land Rovers.

Assistant Chief Constable Mark Hamilton said the police were "treating the shooting as a terrorist incident" and a murder inquiry had been launched.

There are reports that the trouble broke out after police raids on houses in the Mulroy Park and Galliagh areas.

One reporter who was at the scene said a gunman "came round the corner and fired shots indiscriminately towards police vehicles".

"There were a number of houses with families - they had all spilled out on the street to see what was happening," added Leona O'Neill.

"There were young people, there were children on the street, there were teenagers milling about and a gunman just fired indiscriminately up the street."

Sinn Féin's vice-president Michelle O'Neill said she was "shocked and saddened at the tragic news", adding: "I unreservedly condemn those responsible for killing this young woman."

DUP leader Arlene Foster tweeted: "Heartbreaking news. A senseless act. A family has been torn apart."

The SDLP's Foyle MLA Mark H Durkan tweeted: "Just leaving Creggan, heartbroken and angry at the senseless loss of a young life.

"Violence only creates victims, that's all it ever has done. The thoughts and prayers of our city are with the young woman's family and friends, may she rest in peace."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-47985469

 

[Technics 1210]

The causalities of the IRA dwarf the total number of ISIS casualties in the West! Such was the devastation and terror of the IRA, and anyone living in the the UK during the 70s, 80s, and 90 will tell you IRA posed a greater threat. Of course not to say anything of how the USA funded the IRA, much like the Saudis and Israelis are funding ISIS.

Just because the IRA warned of an attack via a telephone, doesn't make them saints over ISIS. A terrorist is a terrorist with the intention to terrorize and kill.

ISIS are equally as abhorrent, by targeting indiscriminately and using religion as an excuse.

The key difference is however ISIS was born out of the effects of Western Foreign policy, which means ISIS target international, where as IRA was domestic, but with respect to the UK, IRA was far far worse.

One of the reasons why the hard border is a point of contention with respect to Brexit, is the fear of the return of the IRA.

 

[IMMY69]

Since I last wrote here I can now add that I was in Borough Market exactly 24 hours before the ISIS attack. My office used to be Hays Galaria and then Borough High Street and although I had move by then I was meeting up with some of my old friends some of whom were actually there 24 hours later when the actual attack took place...

Hand on my heart I don’t think I ever feel fear during the IRA times or the more recent ISIS attacks...
Maybe that’s just the British way of just carrying on with normal life regardless...
But in terms of the actual danger, I still say the IRA times were worse as it was a coordinated political move and maybe because counter terrorism didn’t have the technology that is available now...

 

[Pete Rose]

You should ask lord mountbatten

 

[KingKhanWC]

Both were born as a result of the British and American foriegn policies. It doesn't matter which is worse, the more important point is dont invade others lands for your own greed as some people will do whatever it takes to fight back even if there methods are barbaric but so are yours.

ISIS, IRA or any other group are nothing in terms of terror compared the governments/armies of the certain nations. ISIS IRA cannot destory a nation as Iraq/Syria/Libya have been by terrorist states.