It’s sort of like saying 9/11 was an effective use of terrorism shortly after it happened

here’s the thing, though: by no measure could this statement be considered even remotely true. if someone, very boldly, were, today, try to make the argument that “the Troubles were worth it,” I dare say that they’d have a good case for that argument, despite the heavy controversy which would come with it. The argument you propose, conversely, lacks the obvious evidentiary support required to substantiate such… an ambitious arguments yours.

And I certainly don’t support it.

edit: it’s a matter of factual and evidentiary support. come back with evidence to support your claims.