Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (12461)	5/8/2002 11:57:25 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The IRA represented a much smaller minority group, but I'm not sure how significant that fact is. Terrorists are terrorists. One factor that may have called for a less robust action against the IRA is that the IRA was less of a threat to the UK then the Palestinians are to Israel. Neither the IRA or the PLO could win in a military contest, but Israel is surrounded by hostile states who have attacked Israel many times while the UK is an island nation with friendly neighbors. Also Israel has suffered more at the hands of the PLO then the UK has suffered because of the IRA. The UK didn't roll in the tanks but they didn't have to. They allready control Northern Ireland and could just respond with police or military acting as more heavily armed police. Israel could hardly have sent a dozen cops or a squad of infantry to raid some suspected arms cache. Both the IRA and the PLO are terrorist organizations but Israel's fight with the PLO (and Hammas) is a bit closer to war, while the UKs fight with the IRA is more of a severe police situation. Severe enough to justify some tactics that might not be used against typical crimes, but not a war. Tim