Good points, all...

Especially if you were referring to the barkeep we had the night we went to the pub shown in our Bund-pic, but I told you, she wasn't my favorite. That woman weighed as much as any two of us combined and knew how to make a night at the bar truly memorable without breaking the bank. I also sometimes wonder if you guys aren't a little TOO tough on the red-head... I know $240 is a BIG tab, but are we factoring in just how much we did drink that night? Seems to me that I recall seeing a bill with nearly 30 pints on it, plus at least Mick and I ate something (Leona, too, I think). We killed a keg of stout, for Pete's sake... and I think we only spilled the one glass. We were there nealy five hours... and with four grown men drinking, that's not that bad a bill, is it?

I'm inclined to think that a fairly strong case could be made that Collins (and I need to stress the difference here... I'm referring to Michael Collins and the IRA he led from 1917 to the institution of the Free State in 1922, NOT the IRA of the early 1970's that bombed bars, nightclubs and bus stops) did all in his power to avoid purely civilian attacks. He restricted his men (his "apostles") to a system of assassination of British officials and known Irish collaborators... he wasn't targeting shopping areas, markets or crowded buses. His attacks were brutal, merciless and fast, and most historians will agree his success stemmed from using the tactics and strategies of the British intelligence services against them... rather than reinventing methods to counter established British methods.

I guess if I had to answer my own questions, I'd say the difference was in the means by which modern terrorists attack and kill randomly, while Collins was always surgically specific in his attacks. Yes, I can agree that there is a lack of nobility and chivalry in shooting the chief British intelligence officer assigned to Dublin Castle dead in his own morning shower without a stitch of clothing on... but the man was a legitimate "military" target, yes? The man was a threat to the effort of Irish independence, and thus NOT a civilian. The man declared war on the rebellion, and paid the price for his declaration.

Furthermore, I agree whole heartedly that our "founding fathers" were NOT "terrorist"... not even of the same sort of "rebels" as Collins, in truth. Washington, Green, Knox, et al were leaders of standing army formations leading "uniformed" troops and militia (in as much as we had a uniform) into pitched battles against standing British armies. Contemporary military etiquette was followed with minute attention on both sides of the fight (with very few exceptions, again, on both sides... Tarleton on the British, Sullivan on the American), and that isn't seen at all in the Irish fight for independence outside of the surrender of the garrison at the General Post Office in 1916.

I think I was just wondering if Jambo really equated the effort of Collins and his men (and De Valera, too) with the term "terrorist" in his previous post. I'm sure he didn't, but his statement concerning the IRA was rather broad and quite general, and I wanted to be sure, that's all.