Sinner or saint.

Today the world lost another of its 'freedom fighters', that is, freedom at the cost of indiscriminate murder because others won't do what he/she wants. Shall we discuss what the word 'freedom' means and how it equates to stealing another's 'freedom' and consequently their whole lives? So was it in the name of freedom or religion or both? And is it a 'loss'?

People come and go, a loss to some who knew and valued them, but just general 'churn' to everyone else, unless it's a 'hero' of some kind.

Guess you mean that Irish Guiness chap. Wasn't he fighting for Ireland as a 'free' nation, rather than for religion or individual freedom?

Most of the news from Ireland I've heard during my lifetime has been about people and places I don't know in a language I don't understand. I don't follow football either.

As I understand he was re-fighting a battle already lost some 50 years previously and settled some 50 years previously amongst the protagonists of the time. But - I suspect there was much more to it than that. The religious divide classified the people into a 'false' divide and the minority of that division was to some extent prayed upon by the larger and more stronger majority - and therefore the battle (from McGuinness's point of view) was more for 'fairness' amongst the population than for sovereignty - albeit that sovereignty to and including Eire would have given the same result and tipped the 'war' on its head with the Loyalists then becoming the terrorists. In other words - the whole thing was a non-starter from the word go and the only 'real' solution would have been to Stalinize the whole affair and move all the Catholics into one province and redraw the border. - a form of 'ethnic cleansing' by movement rather than slaughter. Whatever - murder (especially of the innocent) can never be an excuse for 'freedoms' no matter what.

But in the end he turned away from violence and worked for peace. Should there not be at least some recognition of that?

Yes but it diminishes considerably the more violence perpetrated beforehand. A turning away from violence should have been accompanied by closure for the victims and their families as well -. We all know why that wasn't the case considering his position in the IRA and the knowledge he had and not wanting 'others' to have to pay for their crimes alongside him. It therefore makes the whole last 20 years a hollow sham whether he was sincere or not.