Hidden Evidence In Omagh Bomb Case?

Cáit Trainor, spokesperson for the Release Seamus Daly Campaign hits out at withholding of information in the ongoing court proceedings arising out of the Omagh bomb prosecution.

Today 1st December 2015, once again the case against Seamus Daly was before Omagh magistrate’s court.

During proceedings defence Solicitor Peter Corrigan stated openly in the court that he believed there was a third mobile phone in the matrix of the phone analysis for the case against Seamus Daly, and that he was seeking full disclosure for this third mobile phone.

To date phone analysis has focused and disclosed information on two mobile phones only, while completely withholding even the existence of a third mobile phone.

Back in April 2015 it was revealed by Teresa Villiers, British Secretary of State to Ireland that the British Government had secret evidence on the Omagh bomb case. This was revealed as a High court bid was made to have a stop put to a public inquiry.

In October 2014 Police Ombudsman Michael Maguire published a report where he found RUC Special Branch withheld some intelligence information on the case.

Today’s revelation in Omagh Court is further proof of the reliance and wholesale use of secret evidence in Ireland by the British Government. It is further proof of the ongoing policy of internment by remand against Irish Republicans on the strength of secret evidence.

While the British government shout about human rights abuses elsewhere in the world they are committing gross acts of it in Ireland with the use of secret evidence and the promotion of secret courts.

Once again we ask all those with an interest in human rights and justice to take a stand. The use of secret courts and evidence has no place in a modern society, those who make use of such are guilty of deceit and corruption and this must be opposed by all.


  1. Does not take learned man, to realise the British are probably protecting a high level human asset within the 'dissident' republican groups.

  2. Cait

    The OPONI wrote 2 reports as far back as 1998 and 2001 pointing to concealment of evidence. In one report the OPONI concluded that: “It will never be known whether or not the bombing of Omagh could have been prevented.”
    ‘Statement by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland on her Investigation of matters relating to the Omagh Bomb on August 15, 1998’, at p.8 § 12.

    In another the OPONI complained that the Intelligence Services withheld “significant intelligence” from investigators, such that their disclosure “would have had the potential to make a difference to the outcome of the investigation of the Omagh Bomb.”
    ‘Statement Of The Police Ombudsman For Northern Ireland In Relation To The Omagh
    Bomb Investigation Report 15th August 1998’, 12th December 2001, at p. 10.

    Its pretty clear that OPONI believe that the investigation has been hampered by concealment of evidence -what are the chances the third phone, if one exists, belongs to Brit Intel Officer Gordon Kerr (AKA FRU's Colonal 'J')?

  3. Not only are they likely protecting an informer - and everyone who knows anything about this case knows who that is anyway - they are covering for the fact they allowed that bombing to proceed and indeed that they shephered the people deliberately into the path of the explosion to cause as much carnage as they could. As the same secretive and callous bastards prepare to launch an assault on the people of Syria, under the bogus pretext of 'fighting ISIS', who they have in fact been materially supporting throughout, we can get a sense of what value these scumbags have for the lives of innocent people, including the 29 souls who perished on the street that awful day in Omagh. What are the chances that third mobile and evidence relating can unlock further information on the warnings given. We already know the RUC Duty Sergeant in Omagh that day admitted to the Inquest that he received a third warning from the Samaritans, 20 minutes before the bomb expoloded, which said the bomb was '300 yards down the town from the Courthouse' - within 100 yards of where it exploded. He also admitted, in his own words, that he 'turned off his computer and told no-one'. Yeah, let's just let that sink in...

  4. Sean
    And what of the value the scumbags who planted a huge bomb in the centre of a busy town on a Saturday afternoon have for the lives of innocent Irish people? Not once do you condemn them or what they did. Real heroes of Ireland them boyos.

  5. Sean,

    Surely there must have been even a little bit of responsibility on the shoulders of the ones who actually made the car bomb, no?

    Trying to absolve those who prepped the ANFO, sorted out the TPU and got the car into what they themselves called the wrong position is a little....je ne sais quai?

    If that cop did what you say he did, he should be locked up for a very long time.

    But I am sure his mind would be tortured by it regardless.

  6. a few days after the bomb.....those Republicans responsible called a ceasefire...is this not the case? Job done by the British....complete discrediting of Republican violence, the Nationalist community turn away their limited support in shame and those responsible denigrated to 'swine' and 'offal'.....very successful!

  7. Peter, correct me if I'm wrong but you are ex-UDR are you not? We'll take no lectures or condescension on terrorism from the like of you and by the way, not everything is zero-sum. As for Steve's second comment, it is a fact: everything I said is a matter of public record and appears in the Inquest report. There are other happenings around Omagh which show state complicity in orchestrating the events of that day, from the activities of Dave Rupert, from the forewarnings, to the revelations from RUC Special Branch and GCHQ about surveillance of the bombers and the 'cracking' of their phones, to the failure to act on the third warning. All these matters are not heresay but admitted facts which are on public record. Kevin Skelton, whose wife was killed in the explosion, has even come out and said he knows the British allowed it to proceed for political reasons and Lawrence Rush went to his grave saying the same thing - his wife was blew up also. I had two friends killed in that bombing and one of the families is adamant this was manipulated from beginning to end. People round here KNOW the truth, regardless of your efforts to deflect from the state's culpability - which is primary. We don't need to be told the Real IRA planted that bomb, we already know that. What we want to know is what else was going on but some it seems would rather not have that revealed - yourself included. Given that you are ex-security forces then that should hardly come as a surprise. A full and independent international inquiry is what is needed here and should one ever be granted - which no doubt it should, given the evidence already in the public domain against the British intelligence services - then we will see who was really responsible. We'll not hold our breaths on that but regardless, our support is with the families who are still seeking the truth and should quite simply be given the same, end of story

  8. Sean
    I don't want to see anything hidden. When innocent people are killed by whoever, I want to see justice and closure. Your take on this seems to be that the British government planned this, MI5 carried it out and the RUC herded the people knowingly to their deaths. You fail to mention or condemn the scum who planted the thing in the first place. A small group of headers want to take on the British establishment against the wishes of the vast majority of people on this island, and decide to build a big bomb and drive it into Omagh on a Saturday afternoon in an effort to unite Ireland. How fucking daft was that? They murdered scores of people and handed the Brits a slam dunk victory which militant republicanism will never recover from. The good people of Omagh deserve to know the truth and you need to take off the rose tinted goggles.

  9. Rose-tinted goggles? What can be said to that other than it's interesting how you choose to deflect. I have never offered excuses for the Real IRA on this matter and have no interest in doing so. We don't need to be told by you or anyone else who planted the bomb, we already know the entire ins-and-outs of who done what and where. The man who supposedly built that bomb has been accused by the same man who outed Scappaticchi as being an MI5 informer, so where does that leave your notions about who decided to 'build a big bomb and drive it into Omagh'. You would be better served looking at the facts of this case but as I said already, being ex-security forces yourself that's just never going to be on your radar. Covering for your filthy, murdering mates is the game you play and all while commenting here as some sort of wise sage. But let me tell you something 'Peter', though the site permits you to comment - and rightly so - it does not mean people can't see you for what you are

  10. Unlike you Sean I don't glorify murderers, nor stand in graveyards to remember murderers. None of my mates are filthy murderers. I condemn all members of the security forces who killed innocents. It was nice of you to speak on behalf of this site's readers.

  11. For all we know you're a murderer yourself Peter - like the rest of your UDR scumbag mates

  12. Like your attacks on HJ you play the man and not the ball. You don't like it up ya.

  13. You two are exactly the reason why the top end of the island has been at each others throats for a very long time.

    The war was dirty, it was horrible and NO side can claim the moral high ground including state actors. You seem intent in settling old scores rather than understanding the context and product of what claimed so many lives, regardless of guilt or ethno-political persuasion.

    Glib generalities and pointless soundbites aside, what do either of you hope to achieve? Where is your political nous taking you in this course of action? All you are really left with is finger pointing.

    Both of you clearly chose a means of physical force in your respective lives, hitching your respective 'wagons' to your communities zeitgeist. What did this achieve?

    The status quo and 3000 dead.

    Well done you.

  14. It's yourself who quite obviously doesn't 'like it up you' Peter. We all know what you and your UDR mates got away with over the years, that you don't like it being brought into the conversation is your problem and not mine. You think you can describe other people how you please but can't hack it when someone makes mention of your own, an attitude which is unfortunately wholly typical of those from your background, whether B-men or the shower of thugs that followed their disbandment

  15. Peter,

    Sean certainly doesn't speak on behalf of this reader (^_^) but I guess you already get that. Alas there are his likes on both sides of the old divide still holding on to outdated models of reality. Sadly and unfortunately a small minority exists that cannot/will not embrace the new dispensation. I suppose the only consolation we can take is (that) as time passes and as their numbers dwindle and diminish the less relevance, influence or effectiveness they have. Their shibboleths and marching rituals will come to be seen as anachronisms and largely the preserve of the aged and deluded.

    In the interest of open dialogue it beholds us though to make allowances occasionally for such emotional outburst as Sean sometimes is given to. When I come across strong emotional rants and unreasonable responses as those which Sean often vents I find myself pondering as to what degree are these individuals frustrated and what are they fearful about or fearful of. I have come to understand and believe that behind or under almost all anger, justifiable or otherwise, lies both frustration and fear.

    Unfortunately periods of significant change will tend to bring up both frustration and fear, particularly so if the changes are not to one's liking. Its not so much the fear of the unknown, which of itself is irrational, but rather the fear and frustration of the loss of the familiar. Its difficult for some to let go of familiar maps of reality, especially old familiar belief systems and old familiar 'certainties' even if they are no longer useful, no longer appropriate to circumstances nor fit for purpose.

    I won't presume as to how other readers will adjudicate the differences between Sean and you on this specific thread but I do firmly believe that a rational reader, that is any rational reader following comments here over time, would see Sean's tendency to personalisations and ad hominem. They'd notice his tendency to personalised attacks rather debating out the substance of his position. On the other-hand, they'd also see your capacity to consistently put a reasoned argument, a reasoned argument presented and defended in a reasonable manner.

  16. HJ

    I think Sean's point might not be as well put as it might but if I understand him correctly he is getting at exactly what you refer to as the "outdated models of reality". If I am right, he is not defending the RIRA but atempting to (not very well) explain that Peter's model of reality is not real, Brit Intel controled and contributed too much to the myths of who really did what. As Pat Finucane's wife has often said about those who killed her husband; 'the button men were a penny a dozen but it is those who pulled their strings and controled them that are the real culprits'.

    The out dated model of reality is that the UDA, UFF, UVF, IRA and INLA have all been attributed with responsibility of a given death toll to make up the 3k+ dead. The true reality, sean is possibly arguing, is unknown because there is evidence that many of those deaths were actually on the hands of the UDR/RUC/FRU and other sorted British outfits? Read Anne Cadwalleder's book Lethal Allies, consider recent revealation from FRU, The Scap Affair, Nuala O'Loan's reports on various attrocities, the De Silva report all depict a very sinister controling hand that is more becoming the reality than the alleged bogeyman as previous always dismissed as. People who have been victim of the 'out dated model of reality' deserve to have their say and be vindicated.

    Passively dismissing things as everybody was equally to blame is nethier true nor fair. Nor are any patronising gestures of 'ok we know all about brit intel activities now can we leave them out of it and move on for the sake of peace' There was not an equal playing field and the Brits abused their power and their own laws -I have yet to hear anyone say that all sides were equally to blame for South Africa's Aparthide regime so is it fair to say that victims of a powerful brit empire or Unionist supremacy were equaly to blame for refusing to be discriminated against or oppressed? I remind you that that resistence was stridently peaceful in the opening years but for the unionist and brit violent and often brutal backlash to demands for civil rights.

  17. HJ
    Thanks for that. I can look back on the dark days of the Troubles and see with clarity that much of what unionism, the British Establishment and even the UDR did was wrong. I understand CNR anger, I was angry too back then, but at that time we were forced onto one side or the other depending on what church yer ma went to. People who look back and think that their "side" were totally in the right are not being honest to themselves. As you say marching bands and men in fatigues standing in graveyards looks so anachronistic surely it will slowly wither on the vine.

  18. What a load of utter tripe from this 'Henry Joy'. In the fullness of your wisdom, tell us where Peter has made this 'exceptionally reasoned argument' in terms of the role and responsibility, or lack of as he would have it, of the British intelligence services in Omagh. Bear in mind that I am from Omagh, am very familiar with this subject matter, know many of the families, had friends killed on that day and have forwarded only factual information - not my opinions. Let's hear it

  19. Hear hear Christy, you are bang on the money. The guiding hand behind the horrible events here, among them the vicious crimes Peter and his UDR cronies inflicted on the community here, has belonged to the state throughout. Who then in their right mind could attach any legitimacy to the continuing British presence here (bar the deluded like Henry Joy who scream ad infinitum this is the democratic will in action). British rule has been upheld by force and that includes manipulation of the likes of Omagh, Dublin-Monaghan and a host of other. collusion murders to set the stage for their cynically contrived 'peace process' and surrender agreement. Just on one other point, we know this Peter is an ex-UDR man and the need to protect the reputation of his murderous colleagues in the security forces is what drives him. But what of this Henry Joy, what's his angle (especially given he forgot himself and created a new persona for himself and since has been forced to cling hopelessly to the same)? I would not be surprised if this troll is someone like the tout Sean O'Callaghan, working here on God knows who's orders or for whom. In fact I would not be shocked in the slightest if it is Sean O'Callaghan himself, it would certainly add up

  20. Sean

    In fairness, whatever Peter's past he has made fair enough point too because he thinks you are defending the perpetrators of the Omagah bomb namely the RIRA -he does seem to understand that you are trying to reach beyond the lowly button men and not stick up for them.

    HJ can explain himself but I do know him and you are far off the mark -he's not a troll or O'Callaghan.

  21. Sean
    I would be interested to know when and where I defended the reputation of the security forces? I don't look on the security forces with the same rose tinted specs which you use to defend, and indeed, eulogise the IRA. Let's have some balance from you and less of the personal abuse.

  22. Christy, if the security forces allowed a bomb to explode, a bomb they could have stopped at any point between learning of its location in Louth and its later delivery into Omagh (and let's remember MI5 admitted foreknowledge of its whereabouts and GCHQ admitted to the tracking of the car by satellite surveillance on 15th August 1998), then who do we say holds primary responsibility? The hapless dupes who were played like a fiddle, some of whom themselves are suspected of being agents, or those who manipulated from the shadows and calculated the necessity of such an atrocity to advance their political agenda? Bear in mind also that RUC Special Branch admitted three years ago to having 'cracked' the bombing team's phones and to having intercepted the messages relayed between the bombers and their support team back in South Armagh on the actual day itself. Add that to the admission to the Inquest by the Desk Sergeant on duty in Omagh RUC Barracks on the day in question, that he received a third warning identifying the location of the bomb as being '300 yards down the town from the Courthouse' from the Samaritans at 2.50pm and 'turned off his computer and told no-one', just think about all that and then tell me who is fundamentally at fault. We also should make mention of the scoundrel Dave Rupert in all of this, who infiltrated dissident republican circles and has boasted about having driven into Omagh on the dummy-run beforehand. The Brits knew all about it and were manipulating events from start to finish - including the herding of people into the path of the explosion. It is not lost on people round here that not one member of the security forces was as much as hit by flying debris never mind injured - and yet that's not to say they were all in on it, I don't believe that either. Some were though and the rest were just following orders unwittingly. Beyond all that - all of it established fact and admitted to by the state itself - in identifying the role of British intelligence, who many in Omagh believe ran a parallel operation to that of what we might describe as the 'regular' security forces, we are not seeking to extricate or exonerate the Real IRA, who by the way I do not and have never supported. We are simply trying to get to the mind-boggling truth of what really happened. To those who think the state would not behave this way they would really need to look into this themselves rather than take it on my word. For if they do they will find that everything I have made mention of is the frightening reality of what happened in our town on that terrifying afternoon 17 years ago. I was there and I will never forget it. I buried one of my teammates and a girl I used to meet after school for coffee, many of my friends were badly injured. This is a very difficult conversation to have with people but I believe we owe it to the victims to expose these monstrous criminals for all that they've done. Warped is not the word for it but I understand it's difficult for many to accept. This is not a game between arseholes like ourselves trying to get the better of one another in a debate over the internet, this is very, very real and like the murder of Finucane, who you mentioned, lifts the lid on the stinking rotten dirty war the British fought here and the depths to which they sank. 'Henry Joy' and Peter - and the winning of any perceived argument - are secondary to me but I do believe Peter's history in the security forces impacts on his judgement. As for HJ I don't really know or care what his true agenda is, either way I know the truth in what I'm saying regardless

  23. Sean,

    whether your account is accurate or not, if you manage to maintain the tone and presentation in all your arguments that you have displayed in this latest comment you will secure a wider audience and alienate fewer readers.

  24. Sean

    I know Omagh is close to home for you and I can respect your sensitivities about the matter. In fairness to Peter he has stated "I don't want to see anything hidden. When innocent people are killed by whoever, I want to see justice and closure."

    Your innuendo suggesting that Peter may be a murder is way over the top.


    I'm travelling and under some time pressure so I can't address your well-stated points right now. No doubt how we deal with historical themes will continue to be debated here.

    My own opinion is that this particular can will be kicked down the lane for a very long time to come. As unpalatable as that will be for some it may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.

  25. Sean

    Why did you not lay all that out to begin with? Yes the whole thing stunk from before it happened to the investigation afterwards. Ex-members of the security forces should be welcome to the debate especially, as with Peter he is just batting like everyone else on here and not like some come and ago after having a mindless rant. As it was the Nationalist community who most often bore the brunt of brit dirty tricks -little do members of the security forces seem to understand that many of their colleagues have been targeted also -how many IRA landmines or undercar booby trpas were allowed to be detonated to protect the informant who triggered or planted them? That is something the unionist community as a whole seem to willfully refuse to consider. It must be a scary concept to think that they were out trying to catch or kill the IRA when they should have been looking over their shoulder at those behind them controling the IRA agents that might be involved in killing them or a colleague. In fairness it is enough to screw with ones mind.

    Having said all that Peter is not dismissing out of hand or ranting about IRA propoganda he has been quite reasonable and held his position -he has stressed several times that he is not defending anything the security forces have done -he is open to what what is said -so just maybe he knows that some of what is said is true -and I am sure that your detailed response just now will clarify a lot of things for him though he need not accept what you or I have to say -but he is open to hearing it.

  26. Séan,
    Analytical and informative. Critical and provocative, in the sense that we know that such things are not possible and yet such machinations are a fact of our lives. All in all, a very good 4:22pm narrative. Maith thú.

  27. DiplockCourts
    "...little do members of the security forces seem to understand that many of their colleagues have been targeted also -how many IRA landmines or undercar booby trpas were allowed to be detonated to protect the informant who triggered or planted them?"

    Nonesense, we knew well what was happening. There was a BBC play in the 80s about an army patrol being sacrificed to save an informant and the book Dirty War. Within the security forces it was oft discussed. We were under no illusion as to what the English thought of us. Republicans need to realise that they were trying to force us into a bankrupt united Ireland controlled by Haughey and O'Faigh, a fate worse than death. Life with the English was the better choice. With republicanism and the RC church on their knees it is not as scary now as it was then.

  28. Peter

    So it wasn't ok for the IRA to kill security forces on their own steam but it was acceptible for them to do it vicariously under control of Intel handlers -because that maintained the border? I presume you extend that same reasoning to the Omagh bomb attack hence your difficulty with what Sean Bres has been saying all along. Or do you if there is a Intel controlling hand behind that attack?

    I will take you to task about this comment of your that I let pass earlier:
    "Unlike you Sean I don't glorify murderers, nor stand in graveyards to remember murderers. None of my mates are filthy murderers. I condemn all members of the security forces who killed innocents. It was nice of you to speak on behalf of this site's readers."

    It is almost word for word to what a prominent member of the UDR said to me some years ago. Neither he nor his mates were filthy murderers either. Having defended that they were not murderers he went on to explain that he and his mates took a dim view of all Catholics because they were all in the IRA or sympathisers and so any catholic killed by the UDR or beaten up at a check point desrved what they got. So he and his mates did not have the clean hands he started out with.

    Did the UDR teach you all that mantra?

  29. Fair play Christy and it's long past time Peter and his erstwhile supporter woke up to reality. It was not republican violence which contradicted the will of the Irish people, even though they did not overtly support it by any means either, but the British occupation of Ireland itself, to which republican violence was reactive (including, as you said earlier, how it related to that occupation's treatment of the minority community in the North). Every survey, even the most biased as that we seen lately, has shown time and again that the Irish people want to see a United Ireland. What right had Britain to ignore this in the first place when dividing the country and what right does it have to do so now? None. At least not if this popular will people are so fond of quoting is of any meaning beyond what suits at any given moment

  30. Sean

    Funny how these moderate ex-security force types go from "I don't glorify murderers, nor stand in graveyards to remember murderers. None of my mates are filthy murderers." to --well depends under what context we are talking about and who it is we are supposed to have killed? Now some members of the UDR can be alraight to deal with and are very on the level --BUT as soon as any member of the UDR says that 'none of their mates were murderes' you know your dealing with somebody trying to hide the truth.

    Seems to me his motive was to disuade or discourage anyone from listening to what you were saying about how to understand who was really behind the Omagh attorcity we need look up the chain of command. Why would he want to divert attention from who might really have been behind the attack??

  31. diplockcourts
    The protection of sources is clearly a very tricky subject. In some cases handlers got too close to sources and let things slide to protect them which was clearly wrong. In other cases tactical decisions were made to keep a long game alive. For example apparently Kelly and Lynagh were given a free hand to make sure they turned up at Loughgall. Several UDR or RUC were effectively sacrificed in an effort to bury a certain threat. Clearly I am not comfortable with that but those were the times we lived in. We just accepted that was part of the dirty war and were happy to see the SAS in action. Young and stupid? Probably.

    As for the second part of your post, I find it bizarre. You don't know me nor my unit. Do you think all UDR men thought the same? Do you think all UDR units behaved in the same way? UDR men in East Tyrone or North Belfast faced different cirumstances and threats from what we faced in a Stoop dominated area were the local IRA were crap. My unit was 20% catholic, my OC was a catholic called Paddy ffs! We had a good relationship with most of the local population and Pat made sure we kept it that way because it was his community. Don't believe all the propaganda churned out to justify the murder of our members. Those UDR men you talk of do not share my beliefs nor those of my colleagues. Republicans don't seem to have much of a clue about the reality of life in the security forces. Those in "hard green areas" were very different from those in softer areas. Many soldiers, especially in Scottish and Irish regiments wanted to see a united Ireland. A lot of Paras hated all Irish people including us. We probably had as many run ins with the Paras as you did. Catholics in North Down were treated differently from catholics in South Armagh. I find it strange that you try to equate all UDR men as the same. We were not taught any mantras.

    We have been over all this before. Yes Ireland shouldn't have been divided but it was, almost 100 years ago. 2 states have taken root and there is nothing you can do to change that except convince a majority of the north to vote for change. Constantly crying "it's not fair!" and stamping your feet won't help your cause.

  32. Peter

    The reverse statement could be made by many IRA members because most members never actually carried out a gun or bomb attack -a trawl through the prison population would show a great many were on peripheral charges they gave information, allowed their car to be used, allowd someone to stay in their house or even god fo#rbid they were part of a Colour Party at a funneral or commemoration #, etc -from what you have written simply paying respect at a funneral of someone who may have been an old school friend or decades long neighbour you think it different to mource or remember your UDR collegaues as not 'remembering murderers'. Don't ask for the same understanding that you refuse to give yourself. Oh, the IRA had its protestant members and sympathisers too.

    So in all that context the second part of my post is not so bizarre. It only means that when you wrote "People who look back and think that their "side" were totally in the right are not being honest to themselves." you did not mean yourself. Lets look at one example of your "outdated models of reality" the main thgrust of SEans posts have been to say the RIRA carried out the omagh bombing but how much were brit handlers responsible -you continue to blaock that out and went off on, whay now looks like a delibrate, rant about Sean was trying to shift responsibility to porotect his friends in the RIRA.

  33. Peter

    I should also have said that with the Omagh Bombers we are past the protection of sourcse it is now about protection of the handlers and their culpability in the attack.

  34. Just as I've said throughout, popular will in Ireland only counts for those like Peter when it suits. In terms of what you said about his motives Christy sure that's the point I was making. He's here to justify the wider paradigm that was the security forces' methodology and tactics. Individual abuses can be criticised and thus disregarded from the paradigm but the overarching paradigm itself was justified. I am glad what is really going down here on TPQ this last while is finally being noticed...

  35. Christy, I don't and have never had friends in the Real IRA and nor have I ever supported that grouping. As far as I'm concerned the IRA has been on ceasefire since 1997. My comments are not to protect anyone but to expose the truth. So as I said at the beginning, he is deflecting from the role of his beloved security forces. He's more clever than we might first realise and uses these tactics to avoid the points that don't suit his neat little 'the security forces weren't all bad' identity he's successfully carved for himself - like his fellow-traveller Henry Joy, the voice of reason of course. So let's hear a response to points made, let's hear him justify what his colleagues done in Omagh and then we'll see where he really stands. He spoke of Jim Lynagh and Paddy Kelly above but at Loughgall a passing civilian was killed also. Was this justified? Was it collateral damage? When it comes to those from the security forces and their supporters in unionism it has always been the case, in their heads, that they were justified in the doing of their job while the Provos were terrorists who needed stopped - totally ignoring the fact they had no right to be here in the first place and indeed that they themselves started the war. As Stan Collymore of Liverpool FC fame said last year, 'occupy my land and I fight you and I train my children to fight you'. If the Germans had succeeded in taking a part of England would the English have to accept that as legitimate because it happened 60 years ago? I wouldn't think so and attitudes that present this as acceptable in Ireland but not-so elsewhere are fundamentally racist, sure it's the bog Irish, they don't have the same rights. When all's said and done, the side of right belonged to the IRA, no matter the horror we were all forced to endure along the way. The Irish people, as any other people who's country is under occupation, no matter how prolonged, had and have the right to defend themselves when all's said and done. Those young lads in the cemeteries this Peter would try and denigrate we're doing nothing different than that, defending their communities as they had every right to do

  36. Sean

    Sorry I should have made it clear it was not that I was saying you had friends in the RIRA I was using Peter's agrument for your reason to deflect responsibility from RIRA to Brit Intel.

    You need say no more once he explained: "We just accepted that was part of the dirty war and were happy to see the SAS in action." If they couldn't kill they were happy that the SAS could (no filthy murderers there). He is not this nice passive sort that just got mislead and roped into the UDR by accident. Bet he probably cursed being stuck on quiet country roads away from the 'action'.

    The Israelis get these sorts to trawl webistes and forums spinning the Israeli line to so obfuscate and cloud reality for atrocities that they are responsible for. This Peter guy might have controlled the whole Omagh Bomb attack for all we know -using the elusive 3rd Phone. I am not saying that he did but his motives above do not rule him out for why he has tried so very hard to attack, undermine and rubbish anything you have said. He initially fooled me also.

  37. Well he most certainly has never fooled me. The trolls who come here to spin and obfuscate, while building nice wee identities along the way to help speed that end, are as obvious as they come - as is their passive aggression dressed up as thoughtful critique. The bane of the internet it should be admitted

  38. Basically the difference between us is that I believe that UDR men who killed innocent people are criminals and their victims deserve to see justice. You can't say that about the IRA because you believe they are heroes and their crimes were someone else's fault. If that makes me a troll what does it make you?

  39. Peter

    The IRA like the UDR was plagued by criminality but the IRA operated its war from car boots and friendly houses whereas the UDR had the luxary of purpose built Barracks, and was supported by Air support, RUC, FRU, brit army, SAS, 14th Intel, Loyalists, Off Duty UDR men working for the Postal, Electric and GAs services among others and it still targetted innocent civilians -the IRA at least did make some effort to discriminate better than your lot.

    That all being said -what has it got to do with brit intel having a controlling hand in the Omagh Bomb attack? We get that you disapprove of the RIRA part in the whole attrocity but you have diverted and deflected onto everything other than what Sean has been saying??

    You have sung and danced for us to avoid criticism of brit handlers of the Omagh operatives. Your motive, it appears, is that you "accepted that was part of the dirty war and were happy to", on this occassion, see the RIRA discrdited as it was after that attack. You are ready to throw your UDR colleagues under a bus as a show of your reasonablness (maybe even let one get blown up? given your mind set) -but you are very protective of the Intel role in countless murders ..... why is that?

  40. Sean, I know you are clearly passionate but you cannot seriously be implying that the Provisionals were all above reproach for whatever actions they did because no matter what they were 'in the right'?

    For the record I have never been in any armed groupings and consider myself a Socialist above all. Yes, British Intel were awful, I am fully aware of how much insidious things, terrible things they did and expect to see much more come out. There should be arrests and convictions but I am not that naive to believe that would ever happen.

    But you seem to be tarring everyone on the 'enemy' side with the same brush. Hell, even AM said some of the Best people AND SOME OF THE WORST PEOPLE he ever met were Provisionals.

    Must be nice to be you, walking around completely absolved from the causes of the bitterness you both harbour and project. Some of us come to this website to learn from others across the divide, while it seems you are hell bent on acting the perpetual victim.

    Grow up.

  41. Sean

    how can you allow for a quest for autonomy and self determination by southern nationalism and not afford the same right to northern unionism?
    In binding the quest for self determination to a one island state you and your predecessors denied and deny the right to self determination to a unionist cohort localised in the north eastern portion of the island. Surely you must recognise something inequitable in that?
    Through the 1916 Proclamation of The Irish Republic, the IRB tried to sweep away all the unavoidable implications of the Ulster covenant of 1912 by declaring itself oblivious to these differences and declaring them as having been carefully fostered by an alien government. History has shown the rhetorical flourishes of the Proclamation as to have been inaccurate, misleading and unachievable.

    What you venerate and what you prostrate yourself before is your rightful individual choice but none of us have the right to force our beliefs or our preferred solutions on others.

  42. And yet you would force your beliefs and 'preferred solution' on the Irish people, who still to this day want to see a United Ireland, to say nothing of your use of 'the will of the Irish people' when it suits and then the 'quest for autonomy and self-determination for southern nationalism' when that suits better, when that's what it takes to prop up your pseudo argument. I am from Tyrone so this 'southern nationalism' - and we should first of all make clear there is no such thing, it is Irish nationalism and Ireland has 32 counties - is nothing but a red herring. Your position is that Britain rightfully partitioned Ireland, that this was legitimate due to the presence of a unionist garrison it had cultivated in the North who needed special treatment. You are saying that Britain had the right to use force to do so - and indeed to uphold its action - and that we should have had the sense to accept all this long ago. How that squares with your original attitude on here well, I just can't figure that one out. It's why I've long-thought you a troll and another who uses the veil of reason to serve a deeper purpose - which is the legitimising of partition rule. If you really did know Ruairi and he could see the waffle you go over on here then I'd venture he'd give you a good shake but when all's said and done here, you talk relentlessly about the will of the Irish people not being respected and yet you exclude their legitimate wish to reunite their country from all argument. Why not determine that will in an all-Ireland referendum if you truly have faith in it, anyone who argues against the same has no heed on the will of the people at all and should stop using that term to bolster their argument. You are a proponent of the British will and not Ireland's, for it is Britain's will that Ireland remain divided, not Ireland's. As for Steve's comment I'll not even go there, the idea I think every action by the Provisional IRA was justified is simply a nonsense

  43. diplockcourts
    I have no danced around the "brit handlers". I said right at the beginning that the people of Omagh deserve justice and truth, go back and look at the posts. What part of that don't you understand? And I have not thrown my UDR colleagues under a bus to look reasonable, only the ones involved in criminality. I have many catholic friends and served with many catholics so for me the likes of the Glennane gang are no better than the Provos.

    You also say that the IRA conducted its war from "car boots and friendly houses" that gave me a right chuckle. I also had a good laugh at the idea that the RAF helped the UDR shoot innocent people. I take it Mr Diplockcourts that you are a youngster who never actually lived the Troubles, you've been listening to too much propaganda. Not so funny was the idea that the IRA "discriminated better than my lot", you clearly have the same rose tinted goggles of that other hero worshipper Sean Bres. I don't do whataboutery but I could list hundreds of innocent people murdered by the Provos. Get the goggles off DC.

  44. Sean

    whatever changes that come about will only come with the consensus of a Northern majority. All that, as I best understand it, is now written into international law. Even the aspirational clauses of Dev's constitution have been relinquished.

    Cáit's article poses human rights questions about the use of hidden evidence in trials that are far more relevant and pressing. These are the issues we ought be pursuing rather than engaging in trading insults. The right to a fair trial with full public disclosure of all evidence, could I believe garner significant broad support. Weaving the right to an open trial into a 'bad bwits' narrative is less than useful. It detracts form the primary human rights issues and limits the range as to where support might come from. Though you may find it difficult to believe, I am of the opinion that standing into such a position, you, Peter, myself, Diplocks and many others could find common purpose.

    You took some courageous steps in sharing parts of your own personal experiences earlier in this thread. Those comments were expressed with measure and really gave a sense of where you're coming from. They offer some understanding, at least to this reader, as to why you sometimes come across as abrasive. I concur with AM's earlier assessment and recommendations. I also urge and encourage you to refrain from the personalised comments. Otherwise, as has happened on this thread yet again, we'll limit ourselves to generating loads of heat and little or if any light.

  45. And with all that there is 'still no light' regards your thoughts on the British hand in Omagh. You talk about fair trial but do you accept the right of Britain to try this case to begin with given its complicity and indeed primary role in the bombing?

  46. Sean
    I said, '..I don't want to see anything hidden. When innocent people are killed by whoever, I want to see justice and closure." What part of that don't you understand? I can't be any clearer. I said that right at the start of this thread but you keep rabbiting on about deflection. What deflection? My thoughts on Omagh, WHOEVER did it, are in that sentence.

    Maybe next time you'll leave the personal abuse out of it. Why do you think I'm a troll? Because I took the piss out of your assertion that Ireland should develop its own car and furniture empires? Still smarting from that one? It was a cracker! Or is it cos HJ and me have the temerity to question your backward looking politics? Whatever it is you are ill served by personal attacks.

  47. Peter

    "I said right at the beginning that the people of Omagh deserve justice" that is what Sean has maintained throughout and you have had proiblems with that. I don't hero worship the IRA I merely pointed out teh desparity between resources and back up between the IRA and UDR -the UDR might not have had dedicated air support but it had it when it needed it but I was also talking about its intelligence gathering ability and access to electronic databases but it still targeted innocent catholics systematically. Logically the IRA must have discriminated more in its targeting practice than the UDR did -that's not saying they were not sectarian at times -they were, but the UDR was sectarian all the time -if only you had rose tinted glasses it would be an improvement on your blindfold. I didnt do whataboutary nor did I do tit for tat attacks I was commenting on the bigger picture -the overall strategy that emerges from observing consistent practice of both organisations -so there were catholics in the UDR and you did not discriminate against them -we often observed how orangement never burnt out the rare catholics living in their own street they got on so well with them -its always outsiders came in and did it.

    Apparently, going by your account of your time in the UDR, I saw a lot more of the Troubles than you did, and that would have been just looking out my window.

    The brits were deeply involved in the Omagh bomb attack -that is well established we just do not know how much control they had over it. I agree with Sean in so far as there should be a push to get the intel people involved and lock them in adjoining cells with the RIRA muppets. Throughout you have opposed Sean on this -so yeah I think you are duplicitious. I do not just agree with Sean I have read OPONI reports and the court judgments about that attack -I cannot say he has said something that they have not -had the courts and police ombudsman rose tinted glasses also? So you see Sean has considerable independant verification for what he has said -you just ranted on that he was trying to shift the blame from the RIRA onto the brits -slightly defensive of you with nothing to back you up. Sean might very well support the IRA totally so what?? -that does not make what he has siad about Omagh wrong just because you do not like him. We know you support the UDR totally -discarding afew rotten apples or barrels here and there, but what has that got to do with established facts as Sean has detailed??

  48. Hear hear Christy, let him deal with the 'substantive' of that. All we're getting here is further deflection but at least now the mask has slipped...

  49. Peter

    I think perhaps Sean's last comment was directed to me.


    as previously stated, I think our attention and efforts are better placed, at this particular time, on the use of secret evidence against the accused rather than the other valid issues you raise.
    Success in securing greater disclosures as to the exact evidence (and its sources) against Seamus Daly may also serve the truth of what and who were in the total mix. It may help bring further clarity as to what really happened on and in the lead up to that fateful afternoon in Omagh on Aug 15th 1998.

    Daly's prosecution and/or subsequent appeals on his behalf could be the vehicle that brings light to those dark events.

  50. The comment was not addressed to you at all but it hasn't gone unnoticed you point blank ignored the comment I DID put your way earlier

  51. From Chris Fogarty

    Any serious investigation of Omagh will focus upon the perpetrators. Chicago MI5/FBI Agent Patrick "Ed' Buckley and David Rupert, a life-long criminal according to a NY State Police State affidavit, moved from Chicago to Ireland in late 1993 or 1994 and remained there until MI5 demobilized them upon "mission accomplished" the evening of 15Aug98.

    Rupert boasted by eMail to his MI5 handlers of his participation in a rehearsal of Omagh, writing: "It was a military operation, and I was part of it." Given the involvement of both MI5 and FBI the bomb-car was obviously satellite-surveilled so parking availability on Omagh's High Street was in the control of MI5/FBI.

    At the juryless Dublin "trial" of Michael McKevitt my wife and I saw Agent Buckley for he first time since 15Jan93 in Federal Court in Chicago when we defeated his attempt to imprison us for many years in Case US91CR911. Buckley succeeded in Dublin using the same means (perjury and evidence fabrication) that had failed against us in Chicago. We had proved in Federal Court that the sole evidence against us, an FBI audiotape, was a criminal fabrication. Buckley also had a "witness" against us. When US Judge George Lindberg asked Agent Buckley to produce his witness, Buckley replied; "The last I heard from Witness John Tuttle (a criminal like Rupert) was from a Minneapolis police station after he crashed a car he stole in Chicago."

    Agent Buckley, separately, framed me so cunningly for the triple murder (of the Langert family in Winnetka, a Chicago Suburb) that I was doomed had actual murderer David Biro (whose murder weapon was FBI Agent Lewis' 357 Magnum) not saved my freedom if not my life by blabbing through his FBI cover into Life Without Parole. The afternoon after the murders the local police had met and named only one suspect, Murderer Biro, but the following morning Agent Buckley arrived, usurped investigatory authority, and ordered the police away from the murderer and onto "the IRA." Buckley and FBI Mole Jerome Boyle both persuaded news Anchor Carol Marin to "break" the news of IRA involvement, and the rest of the media parroted her, so Americans were taught to fear the IRA.

    Weeks prior to the Langert murders FBI Agent Joe Doyle alerted my wife and me that MI5 had bribed and subverted some of his FBI colleagues, and that they were planning crimes to "silence" us; but the notion of a criminal FBI seemed too far-fetched at that time..

    While "testifying" against McKevitt, Rupert volunteered that Agent Buckley had once left him alone in Ireland, to fly to the Atlanta Olympics bombing murder site. There Buckley and his FBI colleagues performed Buckley's specialty; they got the news media to frame innocent Security Guard Richard Jewell for it. Later, Jewell was compensated some $2 million but died, young, soon thereafter.

    Rupert life of scam kept him destitute until he hit the jackpot by supplying the criminal scams that MI5 and the FBi wanted. He was a four-time bankrupt; he defrauded two or three sets of his four sets of parents-in-law. There is far, far, more. I possess abundant evidentiary documents.

    In brief; new evidence indicates that the MI5/FBI crimes against us in Chicago, followed by the Omagh atrocity by the same gang, had a purpose; to demonize the IRA, drive home the GFA that surrendered the Six Counties to Britain thus freeing up Britain's military for use by America's Neo-Cons in their then-planned wars against Islam.

    Use this as you will. May the Omagh perpetrators be brought to justice at last.

  52. "In brief; new evidence indicates that the MI5/FBI crimes against us in Chicago, followed by the Omagh atrocity by the same gang, had a purpose; to demonize the IRA, drive home the GFA that surrendered the Six Counties to Britain thus freeing up Britain's military for use by America's Neo-Cons in their then-planned wars against Islam."

    "To demonize the IRA"? Which IRA? The Provisional's were on ceasefire in '98 so I am assuming this means one of the dissident groups. This article seems to be an attempt to shift any blame whatsoever away once again from the actual bombmakers and planters.

    But I can actually believe it, nothing about the Spook world surprises me anymore. I hope the truth does come out as horrible as it no doubt would be, but the Law must be seen to be impartial and not just a stick to beat the other side with.

    The facilitators, the makers and the spooks who greased the wheels have much blood on all their hands.

  53. When 'the law' engages in what it did in Omagh Steve then there is no law. How could we trust 'the law' to unearth these matters when that same law itself is integrally involved and thoroughly corrupt?

  54. Sean,

    Yes, I agree with you. As horrible as it is though, we may have to try to forget not forgive the blatant bias of the judicial system along with the actions of any of the armed groupings. Otherwise, what's the alternative? Enrage the old ethno-political hatred in an attempt to settle old scores which invariably leads to the death of even more innocents? Or invoke change from the inside out?

    I keep hammering this point, even I as a token Unionist have no issue with Republicanism, it is a perfectly valid political aspiration. But get back to your organic working class roots, work across the divide and use political persuasion to achieve your goals.

    There are few if any British troops on the street, the cops have changed significantly in 20 years and even SF are in a power sharing apparatus of sorts. Not asking you to like it, but it is the reality. Your anger may be justified but at the end of the day it's just going to eat you up inside and not change the status quo.

    The most enduring change comes from within. Could you have imagined the RUC having a GAA team twenty years ago?

  55. Why would we ever want to forget what happened here if we don't even know what it is actually happened to begin with? To protect your soft unionist identity and avoid uncomfortable truths regards the price of that union (paid for in the blood of countless innocent people)? Forget the whataboutery, the state has questions to answer and people deserve the truth - if for no other reason than to make sure none of this can ever happen again. Sweeping everything under the carpet may be an option for you but many, many people see things totally different and would simply prefer to hear the truth. They are entitled to the truth. Why would anyone fear it? Suggesting those who have the audacity to search out this truth are motivated by anger is uncalled for in my opinion but perhaps indicative of a deeper bias which creates its own needs

  56. And what do you hope to achieve by it Sean? Are you only interested in bring state actors to justice, or are you willing to have republicans brought to account as well? Are you talking jail time?

  57. Steve did you ever watch A few good men. Gene Hackman hit the nail on the head. You couldn't handle the truth nor do you want to.

  58. That was Jack Nicholson but why let a fact get in the way of a soundbite?

  59. Hit your thumb again Pat. Jack Nicholson played the role of Colonel Jessep in the movie 'A Few Good Men'.


    there are some who understandably can neither forgive nor forget. Though the hard truth is that there are many many more for whom forgiving and forgetting are adaptive responses.

  60. What do you make of this Sean?

    "The bomb attack was launched from the Republic of Ireland with the bomb team spending less than forty minutes in Northern Ireland. However the Irish Government has repeatedly failed to assist the PSNI in their investigation of the atrocity. For instance the Irish Government has repeatedly refused to hand over DNA profiles of suspects to the PSNI. In addition the Garda investigation has failed to charge a single person with murder at Omagh. Despite a confession from the person who stole the car in Carrickmacross which was used in the Omagh bombing no charges have ever been brought against him not even for car theft."

    Or is it just the Brits who are solely to blame in your eyes?

  61. Never have I seen such cowardly efforts to deflect and avoid the issues at hand. Of course the Irish state has questions to answer, why else do you think the families are calling for any inquiry to be international in scope? We want the full truth no matter who that impacts on and the idea it should be swept under the carpet to protect the sensitivities of those like yourself (in reality to protect the British state) is quite simply unfair and represents the wilful selling short of victims

  62. Your feigned indignation aside Sean, I have already said if any British personal had a hand in this they should go to prison for a very long time. You come across as laying the blame solely on the British, if i am wrong then I apologise. As you probably well know, i lifted that excerpt from the official Omagh page.

    By all means I support a public, international inquiry. I am protecting nobody. Like you say, i have nothing to fear from the truth.

    But if it did happen, it would be very interesting to see who runs for cover, on both sides of the border.

  63. Any,correct boys, jack it was but sure it really doesn't matter all that much who said it. More what was said or would that be too much for either of you to take in. Omagh was an operation that went completely wrong. An intended commercial target turned into an own goal,the killing of the innocent,helped along by the spooks. I know it,you know it and every dog on the street knows it. But then why let the facts get in the way of a good sound bite.

  64. Your position Steve is that 'if any British personal (sic) had a hand in this they should go to prison for a very long time'. I'm not going to go over this same line of deflection again and again, about my coming across as 'laying the blame solely on the British'. Be better banging my head of a brick wall it seems. It has nothing to do with the quest for truth so why keep dragging it in to the discussion, towards what end if not to deflect? (That's a rhetorical question so please, don't worry about answering it.) You say those involved should go to prison but what prison? This is the state itself behind this, so how on earth can the state be involved in the investigating or prosecuting or gaoling when the state itself is being investigated and the state itself is who needs to be prosecuted and held to account. Do you accept that the state need to be investigated? Do you accept that it should be prosecuted? The families want an independent investigation for this very reason. Cut the bullshit and the whataboutery, it's absolutely sickening to see this continuing. To be expected from UDR Pete and that other clown O'Callaghan (or whoever it is behind that moniker) but from yourself? Judging from your comments thus far you're on a par with them, playing games to avoid facing the truth and its consequences for your political worldview. The disgusting British state wilfully and callously sent 29 people to their doom in what was clearly a calculated and controlled operation which they were fully in command of throughout, even where most of those involved at the Real IRA level were not in the slightest bit aware of what was going on. Those willing to sweep the evidence under the carpet to prop up their narrow-minded position and view on the British state are only fooling themselves. Many of those families know and agree with what I'm saying because we've all been following the case throughout. Everything I have said is a stonewall fact and not opinion. That's the reason, like Finucane, they won't investigate or allow an investigation. They can't, because the truth of what they done is so horrendous their position would be untenable. Psychopaths the lot and to think there are those who argue we should simply accept the legitimacy of their right to rule here, a rule based on the murder of untold innocents. Never. And before you lay the charge that I'm just blinded by my alleged 'hatred of Britain', which is used conveniently time and again to avoid facing this up, Kevin Skelton has said publicly the bomb was a political bomb orchestrated to bed down the arrangement at Stormont. His wife was killed so why on earth would he ever say that? Are you going to question his motives too or start to acknowledge reality?

  65. Steve
    Don't be fooled by the faux concern for justice from some of the commenters on here. One of said commenters wrote an article earlier this year eulogising the deaths of an IRA team in the 80s, men who had previously carried out cold blooded sectarian murders. The murderers were described as the 'finest' and 'heroes'. Does that sound like a person genuinely concerned for justice?

  66. Steve

    "I have already said if any British personal had a hand in this they should go to prison for a very long time. You come across as laying the blame solely on the British, if i am wrong then I apologise."

    You speak with such conviction knowing full well that -"The torpid languor of one hand washes the drowsy procrastination of the other." when it comes to state sanctioned abuses and murder. A lot of focus has been put on the RIRA role in the atrocity -those who actually positioned the bomb got away with it because they might have been able to bring their Brit handlers down with them. You seem intent on keeping the focus narrowed on the RIRA in order to shift the blame of those who controled the outcome of that day.

    Stephen we all know what the RIRA did so stop trying to cloud the issue on what the state murders and terrorists did.

  67. Deflection as ever from UDR Pete - fresh out of hiding it should be noted (no doubt waiting for the opportunity to get himself off the hook). It would seem the UDR's finest prefers to deal with the facts by ignoring them, channeling those same facts down a route which allows him to avoid admitting the horrifying truth of what the state in whose armed forces he served (doing God knows what to whom along the way) has got up to in recent times in Ireland. And all while presenting himself as a man of reason prepared to challenge himself and his views. Yeah right. You've been fully exposed, the man with the 'faux concern for justice' is quite obviously yourself, your agenda on here could not be clearer and was aptly laid low by Christy the other day on this thread. Are you likewise saying the public statements from Kevin Skelton and Lawrence Rushe, who were widowed by Omagh, represent a 'faux concern with justice'? That's the logic of your argument and position. You are a narrow-minded reactionary, a hater dressed up as a progressive who is on this site trolling so-as to drive a clever agenda, which is to admit and criticise the state and its role where necessary, or unavoidable, so-as to protect the overall paradigm, in which the state and its agents (yourself among them) were fundamentally just 'doing our job'. Some of us just don't believe it was the state's 'job' to deliberately murder civilians to advance a wider end and you can gnash your teeth all day, you can sweep it under the carpet all you want. Omagh is the vicious, horrible reality of British rule in Ireland and what it took to uphold that rule. You know it and cannot bring yourself to admit it. Because to do so would rip apart the foundation of all it is you believe at heart, no matter your protestations to the contrary. Your dirty war was as stinking and as rotten as the worst of crimes committed by even the most despotic regimes our world has known. You can talk all you want about the IRA or whoever but all the whataboutery in the world will not alter that fact

  68. Sean, read again what I said. I support a public, International investigation into Omagh and the rest.Yes, that mean's investigating the British State and I am all for it.

    But I can see you are just another fascist masquerading as a republican 'striving for justice'.

    You will be bitter to the last.

    More fool you.

  69. Sean calls me "UDR Pete" and Ozzy calls me "the onionist" - jeez you've got to have such a thick skin round here.

  70. Further deflection from Peter (expected nothing less) but as for your comment Steve, for a man who promotes the right of Britain to occupy another country to call anyone fascist is laughable

  71. Promote? No. If the democratic process in the 6 counties voted to accede into a unified Island nation (assuming the remainder wants us!) then I would support it. Simply stamping your feet and claiming that the status quo is unfair is not only ignoring reality, it's also childish.

    Or blinkered by sectarian bigotry coupled with a fascist outlook.

  72. A 'democratic process' upheld by force, including wilful murder of innocent people in Omagh, is anything but democratic. Those who conveniently excuse and exclude the same from their reasoning are the real narrow-minded on here and the real fascists. You have shown your true colours but to be honest it comes as no surprise. Your comments are risible

  73. How is the process in the North undemocratic Sean?

  74. Look at what it took to uphold your so-called democratic process, Omagh being a prime example. How is any of what the British done here in any way describable as democratic?

  75. Free elections in the North, nobody held a gun to my head and ever said I had to vote. And you are already assuming culpability of the 'British' for Omagh, absolving the IRA team from any wrong doing as being a cross between Laurel and Hardy and Dick Dastardly, before any independent investigation has suggested otherwise.

    Hearsay does not really cut it, Sean.

  76. You did not answer my question Sean, now it is you who is deflecting.

  77. I did answer your question Steve, although that of itself is a bit rich coming from you -like the others who've since abandoned ship, having steadfastly refused to do likewise yourself. If it wasn't clear enough I'll repeat myself, if the process in the North is dependent on wilful murder of innocent people - whether it be collusion murders through loyalist proxies or it be agent provocateurism as in Omagh - then how the hell can that be described as democratic you risible reactionary fascist? The truth of all this is being unveiled on a weekly basis, soon there will be no denying it (bar for the brainwashed like yourself - who will never admit to the crimes Britain prosecuted against the people of this country, because quite simply their bigoted, sectarian politics won't allow them to). And all that's to say nothing of how the country was partitioned in the first place. How on earth can you glibly proclaim that Britain had a democratic right to do any of that? It's actions here during the Troubles were the antithesis of democracy and were absolutely criminal. You bandy about terms like fascist when in truth you should be speaking into the mirror when uttering the same. The comment section on this site has been utterly destroyed by people like yourself and some of the other contributors to this particular thread. For far too long you's have been let bully and harrass and dictate and put down to avoid the addressing of the crux of the matter: Britain never had any right in Ireland and will never have any right - no more than Germany would have a right to be in England. Absolute rot from you and others time and again and it's no wonder you's are the only one's I can see who're left commenting here for the most part. To all intents and purposes, it's impossible to deal with not only the hopelessly deluded but with the hopelessly deluded who have mastered the art of deflection and of labelling others in the negative to achieve that very same end. So it's no wonder they don't 'debate' ye's - there's no point when people as yourself are not prepared to acknowledge the points others make. Bit of a rant for sure but that's definitely how I see what's unfortunately been going down on the site. Good riddance to ye's, as far as I'm concerned you's are as toxic as you's are hate-filled and reactionary. You's get away with far too much on here but seem to be excused on the basis that you's are unionist. I will let the words of Kevin Skelton speak for the crime committed in Omagh by the British state and will let you explain how he is a reactionary and a fascist, that will certainly be a lot harder to do given he was widowed by that bombing. He knows the truth. I know the truth. There are countless people in this town who KNOW THE TRUTH. We are not assuming anything as you allege, the facts are readily available and are a matter of public record. Square those facts with your 'democratic process' you bitter man:

  78. Omagh survivor’s harrowing story helps to heal divisions:

    He told his story to a packed room including a group of visiting students from two American universities.

    “I don’t think anyone is ever going to be caught because the Omagh bombing went deeper than the Real IRA,”

    “I think that the Omagh bomb was a political bombing.

    “Bloody Sunday started the Troubles and that Saturday in Omagh finished them.

    “I think that bomb was deliberately let into that town. People were sacrificed to have what we have up on the hill (at Stormont) today.

    “I may be wrong but until someone proves that I am wrong, I’ll keep saying it.”

    Kevin’s wife Mena was one of the 29 people to be killed in Omagh on Saturday 15 August 1998.

    They and their three daughters had been shopping in the town centre and had gone to different shops shortly before the bomb exploded at 3.10pm.

  79. Steve

    Neither you nor Peter ever did actually get around to any of what I have put to you both.

    Sean has not been, as you repeatedly suggest, trying to shift the blame from the RIRA. My previous response to you remains pertinent to your repeated attempts to deflect responisbility from acts of state terrorism:
    "You seem intent on keeping the focus narrowed on the RIRA in order to shift the blame of those who controled the outcome of that day.

    Stephen we all know what the RIRA did so stop trying to cloud the issue on what the state murders and terrorists did."

  80. "How on earth can you glibly proclaim that Britain had a democratic right to do any of that?"

    This like the paragraph before it, is a 'straw man'. I never said anything of the sort but you claim I did to knock that argument down.

    "The comment section on this site has been utterly destroyed by people like yourself and some of the other contributors to this particular thread. For far too long you's have been let bully and harrass and dictate and put down to avoid the addressing of the crux of the matter:"

    Like myself? You mean anybody that holds different views from your own Sean? Who have I 'bullied and harassed Sean?

    "Absolute rot from you and others time and again and it's no wonder you's are the only one's I can see who're left commenting here for the most part. To all intents and purposes, it's impossible to deal with not only the hopelessly deluded but with the hopelessly deluded who have mastered the art of deflection and of labelling others in the negative to achieve that very same end."

    I absolutely agree with you on this one!

    " So it's no wonder they don't 'debate' ye's - there's no point when people as yourself are not prepared to acknowledge the points others make."

    Already said I would support an independent, international inquiry to investigate the role of British Secret Services in Omagh and others, and I am completely aware this means investigating the State. It's obvious they have very dirty hands. So, I am baffled as to your point here.

    "You's get away with far too much on here but seem to be excused on the basis that you's are unionist."

    I come here to learn, and I try to offend no-one. I am indeed a Unionist, but more than anything I wish to see an alliance of the working class on social issues across the religious divide. I find myself quite often in agreement with AM's analyse and as a consequence find myself questioning who I am politically, and that is perfectly fine. A man's politics should be open to question, and not worn like skin for a lifetime. Your invective proclaims more about you than it does convince others of it's virtue I would offer.

    "I will let the words of Kevin Skelton speak for the crime committed in Omagh by the British state and will let you explain how he is a reactionary and a fascist, that will certainly be a lot harder to do given he was widowed by that bombing. He knows the truth. I know the truth. There are countless people in this town who KNOW THE TRUTH. We are not assuming anything as you allege, the facts are readily available and are a matter of public record. Square those facts with your 'democratic process' you bitter man:"

    This is an appalling appeal to emotion, but he may be correct. I wonder if the others who lost loved ones on that horrible day shared his opinion?

    Democratic process? OK, you win Sean. Obviously I am wrong. I take it you never vote in local or Assembly elections then? You must tell all your family and friends not to vote in any elections in the North, yes?

    I mean, why would you vote?

  81. "For too long yous have been let bully and harass and dictate ..." !!!!!!!