Writing in the wake of the judicial statement about the Omagh bomb Alex McCrory ✒ asserts that  the bombing was preventable.

So said a British judge today. The implications of his finding are tremendous and far reaching. One of the Omagh campaigners who lost his young son said today that it is something he does not even want to think about.

I remember the day well. My future wife and I were driving to Bundoran for a weekend break. She enjoys music and was listening to the car radio when the news began to break.

What I recall clearly was the serious tone of the reporter warning of a substantial explosion in Omagh, a predominantly nationalist town, and of multiple casualties. While driving, I asked my partner to flick through the stations as I was gripped by a horrible feeling of an unfolding disaster. This news story would not finish well.

When we arrived at our destination, I stopped at a well known republican bar in the main street. Already a crowd had gathered and there was a buzz about the place. People were engaging in quiet albeit intense conversation about what had happened in Omagh.

We sat for a few hours as more details came in pointing to the prospect of countless fatalities. As time passed the number of deaths accumulated at an alarming rate. I felt we were looking at unprecedented event in our violent history.

I could not fathom how something like this could happen in Omagh of all places. It did not make sense on any level. As to who was responsible, I had no idea. Sinn Fein could definitely be ruled out, which left so-called dissident groups as the prime suspects. I remember thinking this was a very bad day for Republicanism whoever was responsible.

In the coming days, weeks and months a witch-hunt began for "the monsters" in our midst. The media began to knock on doors, and sources were trawled for leads as to the identities of the bombers.

As the media was shaking the apple tree, the security services on both sides of the border were leaking names and pointing the finger in certain directions. This was undoubtedly the first stages in a massive cover up by both sides. Felon setting became the order of the day.

The official narrative was that Republicans had scored a massive own goal from which they would never recover. Omagh would put paid to any hopes some Republicans held for a resumption of the armed struggle.

Such logic was utterly convincing at the time, but as the years passed, and questions started to be asked how this could this have happened at all, doubts took hold in some people’s minds about what exactly was being done by the security services at the time of the bombing.

What did the security services know about the operation, and about those who carried it out? Surely now, with the Provisional IRA out of the equation, the security services in both jurisdictions were in a position to concentrate their combined resources on dissident groups, namely the CIRA and RIRA.

What was known about them? And how were they able to bomb Omagh under the security radar?

Question were asked but no answers were forthcoming from the agencies tasked with protecting the public. Something smelt fishy, and it was not Raffo’s.

Eventually, a number of Republicans were arrested and attempts made to bring them before the courts. This story is well known from the extensive public record on these cases. The upshot of it all was that no one was ever prosecuted in a criminal court for the Omagh bombing. Although four men were found to be liable for the attack in a landmark Civil case taken the the victim’s families.

And still, questions about the security services stubbornly refused to go away. Would there ever be a day of reckoning?

Today, we got a part of the answer. 

Alec McCrory 
is a former blanketman.

Omagh Was Preventable

Writing in the wake of the judicial statement about the Omagh bomb Alex McCrory ✒ asserts that  the bombing was preventable.

So said a British judge today. The implications of his finding are tremendous and far reaching. One of the Omagh campaigners who lost his young son said today that it is something he does not even want to think about.

I remember the day well. My future wife and I were driving to Bundoran for a weekend break. She enjoys music and was listening to the car radio when the news began to break.

What I recall clearly was the serious tone of the reporter warning of a substantial explosion in Omagh, a predominantly nationalist town, and of multiple casualties. While driving, I asked my partner to flick through the stations as I was gripped by a horrible feeling of an unfolding disaster. This news story would not finish well.

When we arrived at our destination, I stopped at a well known republican bar in the main street. Already a crowd had gathered and there was a buzz about the place. People were engaging in quiet albeit intense conversation about what had happened in Omagh.

We sat for a few hours as more details came in pointing to the prospect of countless fatalities. As time passed the number of deaths accumulated at an alarming rate. I felt we were looking at unprecedented event in our violent history.

I could not fathom how something like this could happen in Omagh of all places. It did not make sense on any level. As to who was responsible, I had no idea. Sinn Fein could definitely be ruled out, which left so-called dissident groups as the prime suspects. I remember thinking this was a very bad day for Republicanism whoever was responsible.

In the coming days, weeks and months a witch-hunt began for "the monsters" in our midst. The media began to knock on doors, and sources were trawled for leads as to the identities of the bombers.

As the media was shaking the apple tree, the security services on both sides of the border were leaking names and pointing the finger in certain directions. This was undoubtedly the first stages in a massive cover up by both sides. Felon setting became the order of the day.

The official narrative was that Republicans had scored a massive own goal from which they would never recover. Omagh would put paid to any hopes some Republicans held for a resumption of the armed struggle.

Such logic was utterly convincing at the time, but as the years passed, and questions started to be asked how this could this have happened at all, doubts took hold in some people’s minds about what exactly was being done by the security services at the time of the bombing.

What did the security services know about the operation, and about those who carried it out? Surely now, with the Provisional IRA out of the equation, the security services in both jurisdictions were in a position to concentrate their combined resources on dissident groups, namely the CIRA and RIRA.

What was known about them? And how were they able to bomb Omagh under the security radar?

Question were asked but no answers were forthcoming from the agencies tasked with protecting the public. Something smelt fishy, and it was not Raffo’s.

Eventually, a number of Republicans were arrested and attempts made to bring them before the courts. This story is well known from the extensive public record on these cases. The upshot of it all was that no one was ever prosecuted in a criminal court for the Omagh bombing. Although four men were found to be liable for the attack in a landmark Civil case taken the the victim’s families.

And still, questions about the security services stubbornly refused to go away. Would there ever be a day of reckoning?

Today, we got a part of the answer. 

Alec McCrory 
is a former blanketman.

23 comments:

  1. Funny how when a mission goes wrong it is somehow the fault of the Brits and not Irish Republicans who constructed it and planted it.

    Even more so when it has been pointed out that at the height of their powers even the Provos were riddled with incompetence, never mind their offshoots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is without doubt the fault of those who planted it. The author does not dispute that. He draws attention to the fact that it could have been stopped. If the Brits could have stopped it and failed whether through design or ineptitude, that is another matter. And it is the judge's thinking that informs this piece rather than some republican PR job.

      Delete
    2. AM,

      The Judge was referring to this...

      "..On 4 August, 11 days before the bomb, an anonymous warning to the Royal Ulster Constabulary warned of an “unspecified” attack on police in Omagh on 15 August."

      That could literally mean anything from a drunken rant in a pub to jarked cars. Nothing concrete. A damn sight short of involvement.

      Delete
    3. Steve - if that was the only thing the judge went on it would be pretty insubstantial. But there is more which has been known about for some time including information that the Dublin authorities might have been in possession of as a result of one of their own informers providing information about the car.
      The suggestion that it might have been preventable cannot really surprise you after all these years and everything we have come to know about the security services.

      Delete
    4. Perhaps not, but every time an op goes badly it seems Republicans will twist and turn in all manner of ways to shift blame and it's therefore unsurprising when the State does the same.

      Delete
  2. Steve

    Whether Republicans did or did not support the peace process the resort to physical force had been neutralized because its justification was always contingent on it being of last resort. Pessimism or lack of confidence in the process are not valid excuses to dilute that requirement, because nobody knew how successful, or not, the peace process might have been. As committed and staunch as dissidents liked to perceive themselves they were/are effectively building their own bridge over the River Kwai; passively supervised by Brit Intel.

    While not all Republicans supported SF or trusted them, the dissidents resort to violence deprived those Republicans who could have presented a viable voice of opposition to the likes of Adams and McGuinness.

    The Omagh Massacre occurred, not despite the best efforts of the security services attempts to prevent, but because the security services ensured it occurred without hindrance. It is well known that dissidents were, and are, heavily infiltrated, and the Omagh Massacre confirms that. On that basis, it is not inconceivable that dissidents were simply being played to whatever advantage the Brit Intel want from them. In fact, dissident incompetence has done more to secure the future careers of Brit Intel than they have advanced any notion of Irish Republicanism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christy,

      "The Omagh Massacre occurred, not despite the best efforts of the security services attempts to prevent, but because the security services ensured it occurred without hindrance."

      The Omagh Massacre occurred because some Irish Republicans planted a car bomb in a market town on the busiest day of the week while full of civilians, giving the wrong location of it's whereabouts to boot.


      And it wasn't just the "dissidents" who used to do the exact same thing throughout the conflict either.

      BritIntel or Gardai special branch may have been monitoring it, and even let it through because a commercial target would have been enough to justify funding. But the spooks didn't come up with the ANFO, the idea, the material or the personnel.

      But it was a absolute atrocity for the people of Omagh and I agree it was a massive boost in funding for the spooks.

      Given how leaky government sources are, if there was a sinister Brit hand beyond it I would have expected a conscience to come forward already. Instead, nothing.

      Delete
    2. Steve The Omagh Massacre occurred because some Irish Republicans planted a car bomb in a market town on the busiest day of the week while full of civilians, giving the wrong location of it's whereabouts to boot.

      That is true. Nobody seems to dispute that. But given that, the issue raised by the judge is that there exists a plausible allegation that it could have been prevented? We know it could have been prevented by those who planted it by simply not planting it. So the judge is not referring to them. So who?
      Nor is the allegation that the security services intended for the damage that resulted just to blacken physical force republicanism. The bombers didn't either. So the question is if the security services had sufficient foreknowledge to allow them to make an intervention and prevent the attack.
      If the state fails to observe the rights of those it claims are its citizens it is a weak position to be demanding that non state actors observe those rights. That, I think, is the point of the article.
      By this stage we know what the security services were capable of - there would be absolutely no surprise to me were they to have allowed that bomb to continue for their own ends.
      How many have been prompted to come forward on Bloody Sunday out of conscience?

      Delete
  3. "The Omagh Massacre occurred because some Irish Republicans planted a car bomb in a market town on the busiest day of the week while full of civilians, giving the wrong location of it's whereabouts to boot."

    Under the knowing and watchful eye of intel operatives who looked on as silent witnesses who cleaned up afterwards rather than ensure Aby successful convictions. We do not know what contribution intel agents had in the planning, which might have been the motivation to ensure that there would be no convictions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry Christy

    "The Omagh Massacre occurred, not despite the best efforts of the security services attempts to prevent, but because the security services ensured it occurred without hindrance."
    We do not know what contribution intel agents had in the planning, which might have been the motivation to ensure that there would be no convictions.
    As one who is an ardent supporter of those who have had loved ones murdered by security forces and state collusion, I have to say I worked the Omagh bomb. I feel that your immediate and quite frankly unproven allegations that anyone working for the state actually had a hand in the PLANNING is preposterous! Yes, the agencies knew of an immediate threat and movement of a bomb of that I've no doubt whatsoever, but I'm wagering the truth is that by the murderous actions of those planning and planting the bomb alone and the fact the bastards sent police to the wrong location is who to completely lay blame with. If not knowing where or who is going to be targeted for murder and destruction is the fault of the police and security services, then I'm guilty of certain things I missed as well in the 28 years..... Not all intel comes in with specifics, perhaps the informant hasnt been given specific targets etc.... I'm pretty sick of the constant state bashing which has been done in order to justify the terrorists actions. And again, I will NEVER condone collusion with terrorists, but it seems to be now there's a concerted effort even by victims groups to align themselves to this myth that every single atrocity was done with the security services knowledge... and thats just not true.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not Really Here

    Fact is we don't know for sure but we can make value judgments based on past record, patterns and form. We know that they have been involved in the planning or target selection stage of attacks -for example Brain Nelson was a handler for a number Intel agents who passed him invaluable information and even gave him the access codes to the security database Vengeance, with higher clearance than average cops had.

    We also know that they have been prepared to allow members of the public and the security forces to be killed to protect the identity of an informant.

    Even if the Omagh attack was intended for a commercial target in Omagh the outcome would potentially be the same. So dumb playacting that they would have taken things more seriously had they known the real target is just self-serving bull shit.

    Even if we go along with their dumb-act that they messed up on letting the Omagh Massacre happen --they have no excuses for the aftermath --their actions alone, thereafter, are the single reason why no one was ever prosecuted for Omagh... If you have ever read the memoirs of former Intel operatives they always jovially brag of unrelated or seemingly unoffensive things involving the bending of rules or some such -"and the number one rule is, don't get caught" -in other words a guilty mindset is drilled into them. Brit Intel and Psy-ops came up with the seemingly harmless term of 'dirty tricks' --the Omagh Massacre is a good example of what the consequences of Intel dirty tricks can look like.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not Really Here

    PS: I find it strange that you can understand the concept of state collusion but not that Intel services might be pro-active in plotting and planning, and the clean up afterwards? The Omagh Massacre has all the hallmarks of an Intel op -while trying to maintain their own plausible deniability. Like I say, we don't know for sure but we do know from past performances -they never turn out to have clean hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christy
      No I don't find it strange at all.... Just because I know something definitely went on in other scenarios (because I've learned to try to deal in cold hard facts) doesn't mean to say I'll blindly assume everything is then the same. And I have to say that yes, I for one know that the security services will risk even their own members safety to protect a source - I'm one of them who they were willing to sacrifice.....

      Delete
  7. Not Really Here

    Then digest the hard facts that there is no evidence to obsolve them from the planning or passive role in allowing the attack to go ahead and afterwards ensure there would be no prosecutions. Given your own knowledge and experience you have no grounds to say that they weren't involved. Whatever your role or losses in the conflict your real issue might be that you can't accept that your real enemy served the Queen just like you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What are the hard FACTS Christy? There may be no evidence to absolve them just as there at the moment is no evidence to incriminate them..... I have grounds to say that until someone shows me hard evidence for collusion ie that it was deliberately 'set up' by state. IF what you say becomes fact, then of course, I will reconsider my viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not Really Here

    Ditto... you are not in position to dismiss their culpability any more than I can prove it. Previous unrelated ombudsman investigations and the DeSilva inquiry have concluded that they cannot concluded that Intel were not guilty but they have recorded wringing. So we do know that they have consistent propensity of breaking rules and crossing the lines of what is right and even lawful.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hate using my phone. 'Recorded wringing' should read 'recorded wrong doing'

    ReplyDelete
  11. Christy
    Seems we have a 'stalemate' :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not Really Here

    Ahem... that means that the jury is still out with regard to any Intel involvement ... which is not so 'preposterous' as you initially asserted when we take into account their past record, patterns and form.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " which is not so 'preposterous' as you initially asserted when we take into account their past record, patterns and form."

      Written on a thread by a man on trial for directing terrorism, or do we accept past records, patterns and form now Christy?

      Delete
  13. My take on it goes something like this. Intel services had forewarning that Omagh was to be bombed. That information would have come from a source. A judgement was taken that to prevent the bombing would endanger the source, but also compromise the source. So a judgement was struck - let a commercial/economic bombing go ahead, and accept the risk to life, or endanger and compromise a source.

    To be fair to both the bombers and the security forces, the great majority of bombs went off without deaths occurring - though, of course, throughout the economic bombing campaign this was always a significant risk.

    Once the bomb went off and carnage ensued, the branches of the security forces sought to cover their arguably complicit tracks - which, human nature being what it is, is natural, if now acceptable.

    Personally, I think RUC CID were often working against/around other intel agencies agendas when trying to apprehend culprits.

    When assessing risk, agencies take an approach something like this: chance of outcome, significance of outcome. So for a commercial bombing, high risk of property damage, low risk of death. This is even more the case when considering the number of economic bombings carried out by republicans from South Armagh, and their comparatively low civilian deaths compared to, say, Belfast. Again, this is a fairly inhumane way of looking at things: but during all conflicts, ruthless, risk assessed decisions have to be made.

    Basically, UK intel didn't think the bombing would be lethal, and neither did the bombers. It was. The bombers committed mass-murder, and should be held liable as such. I simply don't know how culpable intel services should be considered. It's a murky concept.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oops, typo:

    human nature being what it is, is natural, if now acceptable. - "now" should read "not"

    ReplyDelete