• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Maze Prison


cgcsb

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
14
The Maze prison is gone and in it's place a sports stadium and a cetre to commemorate the prisoners. Unionists fear that the truth will be told to visitors there
 

Ballinran

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
70
cgcsb said:
Unionists fear that the truth will be told to visitors there
No. Decent people fear that visitors will be told a load of lies about "heroic struggles" and "freedom fighters", and the truth will be airbrushed out.
 

cgcsb

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Messages
14
yeah the truth about internment might be over looked you're right
 

Thrasymachus

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
3
Well cgsb the parts of the Maze that deal with internment are to be demolished (and how Republicans can claim that the IRA were "soldiers" but then object to internment, ie what happens to POWs, is beyond me).
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
11,432
Ballinran said:
cgcsb said:
yeah the truth about internment might be over looked you're right
Not while you're around I'm sure.
Do you think its right to 'airbrush' out these facts?

Do you think that there was only one side to this conflict and that this side was always in the right/wrong?

Do you believe its better to keep harping back to the past or to push on to a better tomorrow.

Do you want justice or revenge?

Do you want to be seen as the 'winning side' or is peace and prosperity for all a bigger prize to aim for?

In essence do you actually give a sh*t about the future or would you prefer to return to the way things used to be in the North of Ireland?
 

Moogie

Active member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
245
Thrasymachus said:
and how Republicans can claim that the IRA were "soldiers" but then object to internment, ie what happens to POWs, is beyond me.
Because not all Republicans interned were IRA members and not all of those interned were even Republicans.
 

Thrasymachus

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
3
Well then surely that is just a complaint as to how internment was implemented and not the principle itself?

So as "soldiers" do you think they should be treated as POWs are, and interned, or subject to trials as criminals are?
 

Moogie

Active member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
245
When captured by the enemy soldiers should expect to find themselves in POW camps. That is not to say that they should make life easy for the enemy by allowing themselves to be identified as soldiers while not on active service. The vast majority (if not all) internees in 1971 were taken from their homes in the early hours of the morning. How was it determined whether they were IRA members or not?
 

MikeNI

New member
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
2
.

Well now there's the rub. Soldiers wear uniforms. Those that don't are traditionally liable to be shot as spies.

Provo terrorist prisoners couldn't even make their minds up whether they wanted to masquerade as "prisoners of war" or "political prisoners". The fact they claimed to be both demonstrates they were neither. (Same goes for loyalist terrorist prisoners' claims to be 'POWs' too_
 

pogo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
435
Website
stags.pl
The OD said:
Ballinran said:
cgcsb said:
yeah the truth about internment might be over looked you're right
Not while you're around I'm sure.
Do you think its right to 'airbrush' out these facts?

Do you think that there was only one side to this conflict and that this side was always in the right/wrong?

Do you believe its better to keep harping back to the past or to push on to a better tomorrow.

Do you want justice or revenge?

Do you want to be seen as the 'winning side' or is peace and prosperity for all a bigger prize to aim for?

In essence do you actually give a sh*t about the future or would you prefer to return to the way things used to be in the North of Ireland?
Who are you addressing this to, Ballinran or cgcsb :?:

And who initiated the discussion :?:
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,104
I think the prison should be ripped down, all these reminders of the troubles are getting treated as tourist attractions, sure why dont we make northern ireland into one big freak show, why dont we leave all thats wrong with the past immortalised so that those in the future can get pissed off with eachother over the same things that pisses people off today.
I know its a valid piece of history, but people need to get their priorities right and think about whats good for the north and whats not.
 

Risteard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
449
Thrasymachus said:
Well cgsb the parts of the Maze that deal with internment are to be demolished (and how Republicans can claim that the IRA were "soldiers" but then object to internment, ie what happens to POWs, is beyond me).
You ignore the fact that the British Crown Forces are unlawfully at arms. They are actively involved in terrorism and have no right to arrest or imprison Irish people on Irish soil. Their terrorist masters in Westminster promote an ongoing usurpation and crime against human progress.
 

wickerman68

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
3
The DUP & the Shinners seem happy co-operating on this venture.

The problem is that supporters of the 'non sectarian' football team based in Windsor Park have decided that they don't want to share a stadium with 'some' fenians' who might play at the new stadium.

'Terrordrome' & 'bobby sands stadium' are a couple of the names being used by the 'non sectarian' supporters of the 6 county team.

Perhaps we need to decommision the mindsets of the supporters who have cottoned on the fact that singing openly about ' fenian scum' is nor acceptable, but still remain utterly sectarian in their beliefs.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
Re: .

Moogie said:
MikeNI said:
Soldiers wear uniforms.
Not when they're at home in bed they don't.
without going through this whole debate again...

Yes soldiers wear uniform when home in bed. However, enemy soldiers can shoot them dead while they're asleep in bed. If they wake them up and take them prisoner, they're only entitled to POW status if they claim to be soldiers. If they deny it, then they can be executed as partisans/spies/criminals
 

pogo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
435
Website
stags.pl
Re: .

badinage said:
Yes soldiers wear uniform when home in bed. However, enemy soldiers can shoot them dead while they're asleep in bed. If they wake them up and take them prisoner, they're only entitled to POW status if they claim to be soldiers. If they deny it, then they can be executed as partisans/spies/criminals
Let's say an RUC reservist is a schoolteacher.

In your personal opinion, would it be perfectly acceptable for the IRA to shoot him at break time in school :?:

IMHO he is only an 'RUC man' insofar as he is on duty and wearing a uniform.

The IRA always stated that they were shooting the uniform and not the man.

But surely, in the above example, they would be shooting the man and not the uniform.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
Re: .

pogo said:
Let's say a RUC reservist is a schoolteacher.
In your personal opinion, would it be perfectly acceptable for the IRA to shoot him at break time in school :?:
In my personal opinion, the IRA has no right to shoot anybody because it is an unelected organisation of ultra-nationalists.

However, if your question is whether its acceptable to kill off-duty soldiers in war-time, then yes, on the whole, I think it is.

For example, I think a British SOE team in occupied Europe in WW2 would be entitled to blow up a barracks full of off-duty, sleeping soldiers.

It is less honourable of course, and its a particularily dirty, nasty thing to do if it involves dragging a soldier from his bed, marching him outside then shooting him in the back of the head, while on his knees. The killers should feel like murderers, not soldiers, and there's the issue that the victim is technically a POW, despite the fact that the SOE team don't have the resources to take him prisoner, and its therefore technically a war crime.

Another (more relaistic) example would be French Resistance fighters killing individual German squaddies. They don't have the resources to engage in conventional engagements, they don't have the resources to take prisoners of war, so they play to their strengths and the enemy's weaknesses, and take out individual soldiers - if the enemy are unarmed then it feels like an execution, but when the German military have no qualms about executing French civilians in retalation for Resistance operations, then I doubt too many Resistance fighters are going to lose sleep over it.

As regards Northern Ireland, like I said I don't think the paramilitary groups had a right to kill anyone. The IRA played to its strengths and its enemies' vulnerabilities in targetting off-duty soldiers, and while those killings seem especially cold-hearted and murderous, they're an obvious tactic, and a far better one than engaging in full-scale assaults on British Army barracks.

Of course, ultimately targetting RUC and UDR personnel was self-defeating since it played to the British Gov policy of Ulsterisation - the death of an Irish UDR reservist entrenches the Unionist community, and has far less effect on the mainland UK electorate and the British Gov than a regular army soldier (only 300 British regular army soldiers were killed by the IRA: the vast majority of the Troubles victims were Irish)
 

pogo

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
435
Website
stags.pl
Re: .

badinage said:
Another (more relaistic) example would be French Resistance fighters killing individual German squaddies. They don't have the resources to engage in conventional engagements, they don't have the resources to take prisoners of war, so they play to their strengths and the enemy's weaknesses, and take out individual soldiers - if the enemy are unarmed then it feels like an execution, but when the German military have no qualms about executing French civilians in retalation for Resistance operations, then I doubt too many Resistance fighters are going to lose sleep over it.
I don't think you're comparing like with like here.

An off-duty UDR or RUC man was in his own house, in his own community, in his own country, whereas a German squaddie clearly wasn't.

I don't see any reason why the French resistance shouldn't have killed off-duty members of the Wehrmacht.

On the other hand, I wouldn't like the idea of them waiting for them to go home to Germany on leave, and then killing them in front of their wives and children.

Of course, ultimately targetting RUC and UDR personnel was self-defeating since it played to the British Gov policy of Ulsterisation - the death of an Irish UDR reservist entrenches the Unionist community, and has far less effect on the mainland UK electorate and the British Gov than a regular army soldier (only 300 British regular army soldiers were killed by the IRA: the vast majority of the Troubles victims were Irish)
Very true comments.

This is precisely why many of the pro-Union population of NI hate and loathe SF/IRA, and would prefer direct rule to seeing their former tormentors in government.

Republicans like to rant about Unionist 'intransigence' and 'bigotry', yet downplay the effects of the 'long war', their highly effective thirty year campaign to piss Unionists off, as an explanation for the wholly understandable Unionist reluctance to share power with Republicans.
 
Top