Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Priest was a secret IRA bomber - the Catholic church & UK government covered it up

2»

Comments

  • #32
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Yes you can. There is little evidence to suggest he was in the IRA, he probably was though. You can be sure it would have looked like state harassment against catholics, innocent priest being arrested and beaten/interrogated by the RUC. To unionists it would have, in their minds, confirmed that the RCC and the IRA were hand in hand. Commence reprisals on both sides. The govt told them not to investigate. This leads me to believe that they turned him, or believed they could.
    You're jumping to a lot of conclusions there. That's all just your opinion. It's not like he'd be sent to the Middle-East to be water-boarded. And to think that unionists didn't think the IRA were behind it is a bit of a reach. They'd retaliate whether a priest was involved or not. It's not an indication of RCC involvement in the IRA.
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Not really no. When faced with the alternative.
    The alternative of not having criminals behind bars? Because, I don't know if you're aware of it, but the troubles continued on for a bit after that.
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    What about the main party in the cover up? The Brits?
    The same Brits who you claim were trying to protect lives? I guess they were the good guys after all...


  • #33
    danbohan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    humanji wrote: »
    You're jumping to a lot of conclusions there. That's all just your opinion. It's not like he'd be sent to the Middle-East to be water-boarded. And to think that unionists didn't think the IRA were behind it is a bit of a reach. They'd retaliate whether a priest was involved or not. It's not an indication of RCC involvement in the IRA.


    The alternative of not having criminals behind bars? Because, I don't know if you're aware of it, but the troubles continued on for a bit after that.


    The same Brits who you claim were trying to protect lives? I guess they were the good guys after all...


    i am sure you were not around northern ireland in 1972 . the british protecting this priest if he was in ira makes me think it was for a reason , not a good one ,and certainly not to spare irish lives , and no they were not the good guys !


  • #34
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    humanji wrote: »
    You're jumping to a lot of conclusions there. That's all just your opinion. It's not like he'd be sent to the Middle-East to be water-boarded. And to think that unionists didn't think the IRA were behind it is a bit of a reach. They'd retaliate whether a priest was involved or not. It's not an indication of RCC involvement in the IRA.
    You do know how suspected IRA men were interrogated and broken? Yes? It was not just questions.
    It would be an excuse to attack churches and stuff.

    The alternative of not having criminals behind bars? Because, I don't know if you're aware of it, but the troubles continued on for a bit after that.
    The alternative of increased sectarian attacks.

    The same Brits who you claim were trying to protect lives? I guess they were the good guys after all...
    I wasn't making any point other than it was strange that a poster would bash the RCC who went along with the brits, with no mention of the British government. Besides, I doubt the British would really have cared about that. I reckon they hoped to make a traitor of the priest. They either turned him, or reckoned they could have.


  • #35
    Notorious97
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,479 ✭✭✭Notorious97


    If they protected him it was because they knew the backlash that would come from the fact an ordained priest in the catholic church had turned to the armed struggle and was now bombing places. Unionists who oppose the RCC would basically have had a field day with this, the fact an actual official member of the RCC was carrying out attacks against people, thats more of a reason for sectarian violence to explode than the fact the IRA carried it out.

    I think the victims deserve justice, but i am only guessing that the British gov saw it as a lesser of two evils as stated earlier to move him, and who knows as Mussolini suggested they could have attempted to turn him and use him, he was now in their pocket.

    The british gov didn’t do this as a favour to catholics or the IRA though, they definitely had some form of gain from this, as well as avoiding a rise in sectarian tensions.


  • #36
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    danbohan wrote: »
    i am sure you were not around northern ireland in 1972 . the british protecting this priest if he was in ira makes me think it was for a reason , not a good one ,and certainly not to spare irish lives , and no they were not the good guys !
    But they don't know he was in the IRA. He was moved before the link could be investigated. It's suspicious alright and but the "it was to stop retaliations" defence makes little sense. In fact, having a priest involved in the IRA would help bolster British ferver against the IRA, particularly in light of Bloody Sunday.
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    You do know how suspected IRA men were interrogated and broken? Yes? It was not just questions.
    It would be an excuse to attack churches and stuff.
    But were they priests? You were saying he was moved because he was a priest. So he wouldn't of been treated the same then.
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    The alternative of increased sectarian attacks.
    They increased anyway. It had nothing to do with the priest.
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I wasn't making any point other than it was strange that a poster would bash the RCC who went along with the brits, with no mention of the British government. Besides, I doubt the British would really have cared about that. I reckon they hoped to make a traitor of the priest. They either turned him, or reckoned they could have.
    Then why claim it was to save lives? That's the what I asked ages ago.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    humanji wrote: »


    But were they priests? You were saying he was moved because he was a priest. So he wouldn't of been treated the same then.
    Pull the other one. The RUC would have loved to have gotten their hands on a Priest in the IRA.

    They increased anyway. It had nothing to do with the priest.
    They would have increased much more dramatically.

    Then why claim it was to save lives? That's the what I asked ages ago.
    I believe I claimed that it did claim lives? Going by the Brits track record that was probably a nice side effect.


  • #38
    philstar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭philstar


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    The poster in question was quick to bash the church, but no mention of the main party in the cover-up, the British govt. I wonder why?

    Well you have to remember that N.Ireland was on the brink of civil war back in 1972, and if it did become public knowledge that a catholic priest was involved in this bombing sectarian tensions would have increased ten fold...so it was a case of damage limitation.

    My biggest gripe is why was Fr Chesney sent just over the border to Malin Head surely he should have been sent overseas where he would have been less of a threat.


  • #39
    Bob Z
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Bob Z


    Notorious97 wrote: »
    If they protected him it was because they knew the backlash that would come from the fact an ordained priest in the catholic church had turned to the armed struggle and was now bombing places. Unionists who oppose the RCC would basically have had a field day with this, the fact an actual official member of the RCC was carrying out attacks against people, thats more of a reason for sectarian violence to explode than the fact the IRA carried it out.

    I think the victims deserve justice, but i am only guessing that the British gov saw it as a lesser of two evils as stated earlier to move him, and who knows as Mussolini suggested they could have attempted to turn him and use him, he was now in their pocket.

    The british gov didn’t do this as a favour to catholics or the IRA though, they definitely had some form of gain from this, as well as avoiding a rise in sectarian tensions.

    Yea it would have made priests an open target for the likes of the UFF

    This in turn would have spurned on the IRA. It might have been a real bloodbath


  • #40
    yuloni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,040 ✭✭✭yuloni


    This post has been deleted.


  • #41
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    From the BBC: "During that turbulent period in 1972, many believed that Northern Ireland was on the brink of a sectarian civil war. Almost 500 people were killed that year."


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11061296


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    dan719
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,597 ✭✭✭dan719


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Pull the other one. The RUC would have loved to have gotten their hands on a Priest in the IRA.



    They would have increased much more dramatically.



    I believe I claimed that it did claim lives? Going by the Brits track record that was probably a nice side effect.


    The Brits.

    You have already been called up on this in the politics forum. Why do you insist on using this term, which has obvious negative connotations?

    At the end of the day, this so called "man of God" was nothing more than a murdering scumbag. He was protected by the British government and the Church for reasons which we do not know, although fear of a bloody civil war seems a reasonable suggestion.

    Let's not lose sight of the fact that nine people (both Catholic and Protestant and including children) were murdered in cold blood by the IRA. The subsequent cover up denied these people justice, and that must be rectified. But the act was more heinious than what followed after.


  • #43
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    The Brits.

    I know loads of Brtish peoples who refer to themselves as such. I mean no offense.


Advertisement