Thatcher kicked the bucket.

[Tiberius]

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?

That's not even a readable sentence. Rephrase it so it actually makes sense, then I'll know what your actual question is.

she suggested the ethnic cleansing of Northern Ireland:

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

Ok, in what fucked up version of the dictionary is Catholicism an "ethnicity"?

Also, if you read the article, she suggested that Catholics move to the South. She didn't suggest going in and murdering them, nor did she suggest forcing them to move. That said, the article is based entirely on hearsay; none of it can be verified.

the wiki article on the 1981 hunger strikes:

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

Seems to me she made the right decisions. Prisoners shouldn't get special treatment for just being part of some rebel group. If you are convicted of a crime, you should have to serve your sentence in the same way other inmates do. Special favours should be granted when prisoners behave; it shouldn't be de-facto because of who you know.

Besides, a hunger strike wasn't imposed by Thatcher, it was imposed by the people striking. Nobody was forcing the prisoners to strike; they did it themselves.

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

Same as above.

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

She didn't support the apartheid regime in South Africa. From the Wikipedia article I posted earlier:

"The Thatcher government opposed the apartheid policy of the white-minority government of South Africa"

I know you've claimed this is an "epic facepalm" below, and that I didn't read the entire thing. I can assure you I did. You seem to think that not imposing economic sanctions on a country means you "support the regime" of that country. This is terrible logic. Most western countries do not impose economic sanctions on Saudi Arabia or China, but does that mean we support their regimes? No.

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

Peacefull protests may bring the better results in a democracy.

So...you are admitting that you were wrong now? After all, you did earlier make the following blanket statement about peaceful activism:

"No you cant. And it hasnt happened anywhere throughout history."

So, do you admit that you were wrong, and that peaceful activism has actually worked in history? Or do you stick to your version of history?

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.

Are you even aware how Apartheid ended? It was done through peaceful negotiations, not through violence. So yes, even in non-democratic South Africa (where non-whites couldn't even vote), Apartheid was eradicated by non-violent means.

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.

Yes, which is why so many countries were against the South African regime, including Britain...including Margaret Thatcher.

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.

She didn't cuddle with them...she traded with them, as they were (after all) a former colony. In fact, when she did meet with ambassadors from South Africa, she told them that racial separation was unacceptable.

Because she had dementia.

What a pathetic exuse.

No, because she was one of the people who tried to secure his release. Clearly, her view of him had changed in the 20+ years he was behind bars. Possibly because he himself had reformed...

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

Right, but why are we comparing her with a Nazi war criminal, when all she did was rightly call him a terrorist...when he was a terrorist?

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

Deeds dont!

Ok, firstly it's not a child's understanding of reality to note the real truth that people change their minds over time. That should be obvious to anyone, even adults. Let's try to keep this civil shall we?

Secondly, her deeds reflect that she was against apartheid. Read the article again. She "told Botha the policy of racial separation was 'unacceptable'. She urged him to free jailed black leader Nelson Mandela; to halt the harassment of black dissidents; to stop the bombing of African National Congress (ANC) guerrilla bases in front-line states; and to comply with UN Security Council resolutions and withdraw from Namibia."

Does that sound like a person who supports their regime? Really?

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.

The last peaceful activism solved the problem, with the government ending apartheid. I'm not saying that peaceful activism works all the time, or even at the first protest. It takes time; sometimes it may never work, but often, it does.

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?!

No, and as far as I know, there weren't any other countries in the free world supporting the South Africa regime.

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

Morality, which is subjective by the way.

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!

Yes she was. The evidence that she was is clear.

Not imposing economic sanctions =/= support for a regime.

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!!!

I do comprehend that. I understand it perfectly well. Thatcher did too, and she never supported their regime. There is no evidence to suggest that.

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.

No it doesn't. The first bit you bolded supports me. The second bolded section is about economic sanctions, which are not equivalent. The third bit notes that the UK was the biggest foreign investor; something she probably had to bear in mind. Would pulling investment do more harm than good? Could Thatcher trust the South African government to bend to her will if she left them with next to no trade? Probably not. They held on stubbornly to apartheid for a long time. The fourth is bit is amusing, as it goes against your argument as well. Other European countries continued trading with South Africa. Were they too "supporting" it? The final bolded secion merely notes that the ANC was a typical terrorist organisation, which at the time, it was. They were carrying out terrorist activities.

In fact, the only relevant section in that entire piece is the first part, which states quite clearly that Thatcher opposed the regime. The paragraph does not open "Thatcher supported the apartheid policy...", which should tell you quite a lot.

cute

Yes, I find it cute when your argument is entirely destroyed as well.

but irrelevant.

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

You apparently didn't read the article at all. This wasn't about Mandela being a terrorist, or his being freed from jail (though she did demand that when she was PM). This was about the sentence he was handed. He faced the death penalty, and partly because of her actions, he was given a life sentence instead.

It also notes that she called the ANC a terrorist group, but that the ANC (and Mandela) "forgave" her.

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).

No, in one it didn't matter that she wasn't even Prime Minister, because we're talking about Margaret Thatcher, not just her years as PM. In the other, it's clear that either you didn't read the entire thing properly, or you didn't comprehend it. That, or you somehow equate "no economic sanctions" with "supports a racist regime".

Facts.

Care to show?

Certainly. Just read my posts in this thread...and properly this time.

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?

You have so far failed to show that she supported a racist regime. I think it's you who are guilty of ignoring the good points about Thatcher in favour of some invented racism.