George, there is no need to "cross swords" on the issue. One cannot discuss a killing without discussing the issues that spawned it and the politics that nurtured it. Having that discussion does not exclude us from doing so within the context of sadness at a human being dieing. In fact it is a natural by product of the discussion. With regard to my being "simplistic", let me tell you that there is a very good reason for that. I don't know your background in things political, or in the art and practice of war. But I can tell you that mine is extensive, and that I have more practical experience in its exercise and more knowledge of its consequences than the average person. And I have usually found that the person who tries to make the cause of conflict, as well as what is needed for resolution, a more complicated matter than it is usually has something to gain by making it so. Clearly there is a group of parties under one banner that have an interest in maintaining status quo. They have been enjoying gerrymandered benefits for a long time. And now there are parties to the solution who see, in the application of the agreement, a political loss for themselves. Hence they try to torpedo it.

I would, with all due respect and from afar, urge the nationalist community to stay the course and not break discipline. Even in the face of this horrid provocation. They are winning the battle with economic might through the purchase of properties (go through Keady sometime), with their Information technologies skills, and with their committment to employ long term strategies. An eye for an eye is a losing strategy at this time. But letting the thugs show the world what they are really about, and conversely letting the world see that the Nationalists are committed to peaceful resolution will win the day. And it will occur in the not to distant future.

In the meantime, let us mourn the death of young Ciarán Cummings, and the rest who have died as a result of senseless shite like this. God be good to him.

Mick