Reminds me of when Churchill had information of raids, yet had to allow them to go through and destroy his city so as to keep the code-cracking ability a secret.
I'm glad I'm just a critical spectator and not a decision-maker.

This belongs in the forum. It is certainly terrorism-related.

I should say that 29 people died,one a pregnant woman carrying twins.Both catholics and protestants were killed.

The victims families have been asking for justice and no-one could understand why people weren't arrested as the leaders of the real IRA were known.now we know why.

Depending on the strategic value of the intelligence asset, that kind of civilian death toll can be considered an operative loss.

You'd be surprised about what lengths governments will go to in order to protect strategic intel assets. When it comes to national security, governments would sacrifice thousands of civilians if they deemed the asset they were protecting to be worth the loss.

Sometimes itís necessary to sacrifice a few in order to help the majority. One needs to look at the "big picture". I'm sure that Churchill knew exactly what he was doing. If he would have averted an air strike and alerted Germany that the Allies were able to crack Axis codes, they would have quickly abandoned the old cold and come up with a new one. Then Churchill would not have been able to receive advance warning of a full-scale invasion of England. So...if you weigh it out, it's better to let a few thousand die in an air-raid than to lose the ability to receive warning of an imminent invasion.