IRA features in 10 most expensive bombings

The bomb blasts in London yesterday were an uncomfortable reminder of our own darker passages of history. More than once yesterday were the words of the IRA after its unsuccessful attempt to kill Margaret Thatcher and members of her cabinet quoted: “remember, we only have to be lucky once; you will have to be lucky always”. However, although the IRA killed many people over the years of its campaign in England, it chose mainly economic targets. Bimpe Fatogun notes that four IRA bombings feature in the OECD’s “10 most costly terrorist attacks”.

  • DCB

    Was thinking that actually – that the Provo’s bombings were worse in monetary terms.

    Remember also that in the 90s no other leading financial centre suffered from terrorism. So it would have easy to relocate to somewhere safer.

    Nobody can no go anywhere else that’s going to be significantly safer.

  • barney

    It might seem a bit heartless to rank these things by monetary value but it is informative. The figures also show that the IRA were incredibly more efficient than AQ. When the monetary value is divided by the number of deaths we get;
    IRA Nat West $907m per death
    AQ World Trade Centre $6m per death

    As any deaths invariably detracted from the propaganda value of an attack, at least from the IRA’s POV, the Manchester bomb was the most effecient overall at $744m for 0 deaths.

  • Henry94

    According to Sutton republicans killed 64 civilians in Britain over the 30 years. It looks like AQ may have exceeded that figure in 30 minutes.

  • GavBelfast

    Barney, you never fail to disappoint.

    The thing is, the IRA can hardly do it again now, can they? OK, they may still have the capability, but they dare not do it and be bracketed with the likes of yesterday’s culprits.

    So why stay in business? And if they do, why not be put out of business?

  • Henry94

    GavBelfast

    Why not put AQ out of business if it’s as simple as that?

  • barney

    Gav – I think you’ve strayed a little off topic. “Doing it again” wasn’t mentioned by me or the OECD report, SFAIK, so why is it “the thing”? Sounds like it’s your thing and you’ll happily slip it in anywhere, even if it’s unnatural.
    Do you have anything to say about the real thing on this thread – the OECD report?

  • harpo

    ‘it chose mainly economic targets’

    It’s still terrorism. ‘Economic targets’ is another name for buildings, shops, restaurants. Civilian objects, and thus attacking them is terrorism.

    I’m sure that loyalists could twist the killing of every Catholic civilian into being attacks on economic targets too, as in they all had money and contributed to the economy. That would be equally dishonest.

  • ABCD

    “I’m sure that loyalists could twist the killing of every Catholic civilian into being attacks on economic targets too, as in they all had money and contributed to the economy. That would be equally dishonest.”

    Totally agree with this one. Going into bars and bookies and indiscriminately spraying the customers with bullets inhibited Catholics from entering such premises and thereby reduced the revenue available therefrom to the Exchequer.

  • Nathan

    Harpo – good point made in your 12.54 posting.

    But from the Provisional movement perspective, the PIRA never deliberately targeted ‘civilian objects’.

    And they’re dead right of course – the Provisionals have only ever gone for legitimate military targets. Such as that bastion of the British war machine- HARRODS!

    You’d nearly feel like asking them whether it was the soft furnishings, or the food hall that was persecuting NI’s Nationalist community.

    And any fool knows that a secret SAS training camp was located in ladies’ underwear.

    So well done to you, for pointing out that the Provisionals have always gone out of their way to strike fearlessly at British shoppers. Sorry, I mean the British Army

  • Nathan

    Harpo – good point made in your 12.54 posting.

    But from the Provisional movement perspective, the PIRA never deliberately targeted ‘civilian objects’.

    And they’re dead right of course – the Provisionals have only ever gone for legitimate military targets. Such as that bastion of the British war machine- HARRODS!

    You’d nearly feel like asking them whether it was the soft furnishings, or the food hall that was persecuting the Nationalist community of the North.

    And any fool knows that a secret SAS training camp was located in ladies’ underwear.

    So well done to you, for pointing out that the Provisionals have always gone out of their way to strike fearlessly at British shoppers. Sorry, I mean the British Army 🙂

  • Nathan

    Harpo – good point made in your 12.54 posting.

    But from the Provisional movement perspective, the PIRA never deliberately targeted ‘civilian objects’.

    And they’re dead right of course – the Provisionals have only ever gone for legitimate military targets. Such as that bastion of the British war machine- HARRODS!

    You’d nearly feel like asking them whether it was the soft furnishings, or the food hall that was persecuting the Nationalist community of the North.

    And any fool knows that a secret SAS training camp was located in ladies’ underwear.

    So well done to you, for pointing out that the Provisionals have always gone out of their way to strike fearlessly at British shoppers. Sorry, I mean the British Army 🙂

  • Nathan

    test

  • Nathan

    Sorry for the multiple postings – do what you have to do moderators.