Thatcher kicked the bucket.

[Something completely different]

Yes...yes it does. If I were ignoring it, then I'd first have to actually know about it. I'd then have to purposefully put it out of my mind when someone else mentions it. That isn't what I'm doing.

does the fact that you dont know anything about Thatchers policies in Ulster but about her other policies that you avoid the subject on purpose?

I don't have knowledge about it; it's not something I've looked into. I am ignorant of it, but I am not ignoring it. If you want to enlighten me, please send me a few links that you think are good reads.

she suggested the ethnic cleansing of Northern Ireland:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/16...atholicism

the wiki article on the 1981 hunger strikes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike

An opinion piece which pritty much also represents my view on her policies in Northern Ireland:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-08...eland.html

Neither do I.

So you agree that it was wrong of her to support the appartheit regime in South Africa?

You can be against something, but not resort to violence to solve it. It's called peaceful activism.

You do know that Thatcher was also a supporter and actualy a close friend of Pinocet. And that she expressed sadness when he was being chased to stand trial for his crimes against humanity in Chile?
It would be interesting to hear what the peacefull activists who opposed his regime and who were kidnapped and murdered would have to say to a Thatcher supporter who defends "peacefull activism".

Anyway, your possition is naiv and out of touch with reality.

Peacefull protests may bring the better results in a democracy.

But history clearly shows that everywhere else - the tanks role over them. In some cases even with the support of democraticaly elected foreign heads of goverment - like your Thatcher who supported Pinocet and his brutal crackdown.

Nelson Mandela is a peace activist, but he didn't used to be.

I didnt claim that. My possition was very clearly outlined: It should have been outright obvious, even in the 1980s that a regime with mandetory racism is something wrong.

Specifically, he wasn't at the time when you reference Thatcher's opinion of him.

This is not only specificaly about him! This is about her general cuddle course with a officialy racist country. Other than that, many goverments and people support militant organisations when their course is right!!! Because peacefull means often result in nothing but total failure or even worse.

I doubt if you'd asked Thatcher what she thought of Nelson Mandela yesterday, she would have said the same thing.

Because she had dementia.

What a pathetic exuse.

I personaly know nazi warcriminals who said that they were sorry and had a different opinion now- that doesnt make the crime go away.

People can (and do) change their minds.

a childs understanding of reality. I`ll just use a simple response.

Deeds dont!

Are you serious? Maybe it is you who needs a history lesson. Read up on Martin Luther King Jr. for starters.

That was in a democracy.

The first ever peacefull appartheit uprising in South Africa, the so called Soweto Uprising in 1976, ended in one of the worst massacres in recent history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soweto_uprising

From Soweto to Tiananmen Square. Never has any peacefull movement ever overthrown a dictatorship without worldwide public and political support. And those that have like in Egypt in 2011 only have because of worldwide public support and media attention. Something South Africa didnt have. The resistance in South Africa was forced in gurillia - it didnt go there because it wanted to.

So you think I would side with a bunch of racists if the national african congress had failed?!?!?!

I can't say for sure; nobody can. Our views are shaped by the times we live in.

1979 was almoust 20 years after the civil rights bill was passed in the US. Do you really think that any goverment in the free world was still officialy racist then?! Do you really think that anyone today, including a USA with a black president would have any support for a officialy racist country?!

I would like to ask you strait forward at this point: what determines for you if racism is wrong or right!?

If you were born in Africa at the time of apartheid, the chances are, you would certainly be supportive of them.

If you lived in Europe by that time and fully supported and valued the principles of the western democracy and it`s moral values which guaranteed everyone equality - you would have been in support!!! Thatcher was not!

What I'm getting at is that you need to apply context to quotes. Plenty of famous and respected people said racist stuff, but at the time, it wasn't considered racist or "wrong". Times change. More importantly, people change.

You are the one who is missing the context!!! You dont even comprehend that racism was condemed by that time!!!!! Thatcher supported a racist goverment in a time in which racism was condemed as being totaly unacceptable and there is no excuse for that!!!

Yeah...maybe you should actually read up on history before you just spout your imagined version of events:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiership...#Apartheid

You just posted the link to a wikipedia article without even reading the damn article!!!!:

The Thatcher government opposed the apartheid policy of the white-minority government of South Africa, but resisted international pressure to impose economic sanctions on the former colony, where the United Kingdom was the biggest foreign investor and principal trading partner. This meant that the status quo remained the same, and British companies continued to operate in South Africa, although other European countries continued trading to a lesser degree. According to Geoffrey Howe, one of her closest allies, Mrs Thatcher regarded the ANC as a 'typical terrorist organisation', as late as 1987.

this just proves everything I stated.

Also, I just found this on the BBC website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22069896

cute

At the time, Mrs Thatcher was a frontbench MP in Harold Macmillan's government.

but irrelevant.

She was not prime minister then. Which makes her later remarks even worse, because it eighter shows a U turn or hypocracy.

I never said it was.

You are the one who is forgetting that the African national congress was forced to use violence due to the viciousness with which the regime cracked down on peacefull protests - and then you use the violent struggle (for which they had no other choice) as if it somehow justifies calling them terrorists. Through this you aswell as Thatcher are playing in the arms of those who were the reason for their fight in the first place!!!

You do know what the Warsaw pact cand the Soviet union called those who protested their communist regimes with violence in Poland in the 1950s, Germany in the 1950s, Hungary in the 1950s, Czechoslovakia in the 1950s?????

terrorists.

Now I would like to know how you and Thatcher would have called them?

I've just linked to two sources which deny outright that Thatcher supported a racist regime.

No you didnt.

In one she wasnt even primeminister in the other the information supported my possition (because you were to lazy to read beyond the first 10 words).

Facts.

Care to show?

I would like to know which facts can be so positive for a country that it outweighs the support of a brutal dictatorship, the discrimination of a people and the support of a racist regime?

---

Another great leader of the freeworld is gone...Margaret Thatcher was one of the best...

I think I dont even need to ask you what you opinion on discriminating minorities, supporting south american dictators and appartheit is.