Thatcher kicked the bucket.

[Something completely different]

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

Why didnt you care to learn anything about it?

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

Since when is Irish - not an ethnicity?

Also, if you read the article, she suggested that Catholics move to the South.

Oh sweet. Just like Achmedinijad suggested that the jews move to america or how Milosovice suggested the kosovo muslims "move" to Albania. Or how Milosovice forced Bosnics to move into central Bosnia.

In the end he had to stand trial for crimes against humanity in the Hague and the term ethnic cleansing was correctly applied.

So yes. what you call "moving" is ethnic cleansing, and in every case a infringement of a peoples right to self determination!!!

You just seem to twist something arround for lack of exuses to find.

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.

Did you just contradict yourself?! Anyway. If you reject everything I post which is based on "hearsay" even when it is from a criticaly acclaimed source, then I will reject your hearsay stuff aswell.

Seems to me she made the right decisions. Prisoners shouldn't get special treatment for just being part of some rebel group.

This is not just simply a rebel group. They represented a people who were supressed by their goverment. And her actions further escalated the situation and therefor certainly caused avoidable loss of life. She could have simply listened to their grievances and negotiated, which she refused. Blair did it - and there is peace in Ulster now, not stable - but peace.

If you are convicted of a crime, you should have to serve your sentence in the same way other inmates do.

And if one has a cause to commit a crime!? Like being supressed by a goverment?!

I guess taxevasion wouldnt be a crime to someone like you if the accused was a liberterian?!

Special favours should be granted when prisoners behave; it shouldn't be de-facto because of who you know.

special favors should also be given to those who represent a political organisation or minority, through doing such one opens a window for possible negotiations and therefor for the option of stableising the entire situation. Which she didnt do - thereby further destableising the entire situation.

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.

They did it for a reason, resulting because something was forced on them by the Thatcher goverment.

Same as above.

Clearly, you are just grabbing at straws for finding some excuse. There is no exuse for denying someone equal rights! Clearly all before her had failed to realise that aswell, but she had a chance to calm the situation and she decided to escalate it because of some nostalgic empire fantasy of hers.

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"

Yes she did! Being officialy "against appartheit" in public statements is worth fuck all, if her goverment also keeps up trade agreements with that very regime and denounces the opponents of that racist regime as terrorists!

Do you think it is alright to trade with such a regime!?

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.

Which it does! Because trade means wealth and wealth means stability! And trade agreements mean (as the words say) that a diplomatic agreement is in existance. Trade is a support of a regime because trade simply masses the wealth of that regime whilest not doing anything against the regime itself. Why do you think is trading with Cuba, Korea and Iran seen as a support of that nation and therefor condemed?

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.

YES! Most countries have an interest in the Saudi regime staying in existance because it ensures stability, keeping Iran in check and a steady flow of oil.

And there is one importent thing you are forgetting about both cases - the west has an economic dependency from those countries to receive oil and plastic shit.

There was no economic dependency from appartheit South Africa.

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."

I can only agree that I left out the distinctions between a democracy and non democracy!!!

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?

It doesnt work in non democracies without outside support! and I stick to that.

Are you even aware how Apartheid ended? It was done through peaceful negotiations, not through violence.

Because of outside pressure and mounting economic pressure. If it had continued South Africa would have ended up together with North Korea and Iran.
And in case you didnt notice - the reason why the nobel price of peace was given was because they managed to avoid a civil war between whites and blacks under the condition that there would be no criminal investigations into crimes against humanity - so in the end it was a failure.

So yes, even in non-democratic South Africa (where non-whites couldn't even vote), Apartheid was eradicated by non-violent means.

Through outside economic pressure (in which Thatcher didnt participate) and not because of inside protests (which the regime could have ignored and cracked down upon for ever)

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

Again! Droping dribble in speeches in the house of commons on how bad racism is isnt worth a steaming pile of shit if you actualy trade with racists and criminalise those who fight it!

She didn't cuddle with them...she traded with them, as they were (after all) a former colony.

What kind of weird logic is that?! "Of course we trade! They once were our colony!"?????????
Japan and North Korea should have great trade releations if that logic was even mildly accurate!!!

And yes! It is cuddling and I call it so because she chose to condem those who fought it but trade with those who implemented it!

In fact, when she did meet with ambassadors from South Africa, she told them that racial separation was unacceptable.

Again! Pritty words are worth even less than nothing if actions dont follow!!

No, because she was one of the people who tried to secure his release.

By calling him a terrorist????

Clearly, her view of him had changed in the 20+ years he was behind bars.

Or because it became clear, that she had supported one of the most vicious regimes in the world, and there would be no excuse if she would continue doing so.

In the end of the 1980s almoust every single country on the globe was calling for his release - Thatcher was late!

Possibly because he himself had reformed...

It is not for him - to reform himself!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was for the appartheit goverment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you think the nazis would have deconstructed the polish slave labor system if the polish resistance would have given up its armed resistance?!

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?

You are changing the subject of what I was talking about!!!

To do something stupid or wrong only to later say "I didnt know better then" is a childs understanding of responsibility!

One is required to take responsibility and to appologise! She didnt!!!

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?

Yes it is a childs understanding! Because her deeds supported a criminal regime. And to then simply say "Ups!" is like a 7 year old who broke something.
This was one of the most brutal regimes in the world and those who fought it had a just cause, not some childish mistake which one can simply look over.

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."

all whilest happyly keeping up her trade agreements. and giving the appartheit regime propaganda amunition by calling the ANC a terrorist organisation.

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

Trading with them is giving them support - no matter what she may say in the house of commons to get votes!!!

The last peaceful activism solved the problem, with the government ending apartheid.

It was the massing of foreign pressure which ended appartheit! the regime new that with the end of the soviet union it lost it`s possition as anticomunist satilite.

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.

No it doesnt. it simply sounds nice and gives foreign leaders something to talk about during campains.

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

Reagan`s US administration kept tradeagreements.

And the US had supported the appartheit regime with weapons and equptment to invade Angola in 1966 and fight there against a potential communist regime.

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

Morality, which is subjective by the way.

didnt answere the question.

When is racism acceptable for you? Or when is it alright to deal with a racist?

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

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

wrong.

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.

Again. words are useless if not followed by actions. and trading is supporting because it ensures the economic groath, wealth and stability of a regime.

which is the reason why unwanted regimes are boycotted.

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.

"Bending to her will"???????????

Almoust the entire world condems and boycotts a regime and you think they will bend over to the primeminister of a collapsed empire?!?!

And you think that keeping up trade with them gives some kind of pressure on them?!!!!

No! If she had boycotted, their economy would have gained a blow, they would have reduced wealth and social stability would no longer be ensured - hence people would question the regime.

Thatcher kept the trade agreement because free trade was more importent to her than moral principle - even more importent than taking a stand against racism. And you are simply trying to find an excuse for that complete and utter moral failure.

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?

let`s see which European nations resisted the most against the UN unbinding resolution for the South African boycott.

Franciso Franco`s fascist Spain and Salazar`s fascist Portugal!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!????

Do you think the UK is compareable to those countries!? Well at least Thatcher has some fitting company amongst Franco and Salazar.

Other than that I could only find trade organisations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-South...ssociation

Other than that, most european nations didnt even have trade relations, every single one condemed it, and some also rallied against it such as Olaf Palme. And especialy during the 1980s, public opinion went against appartheit, which didnt seem to bother Thatcher and Reagan.

You are also forgetting that the unbinding resolution was mainly aimed against South Africa, but also against the UK and the US because of their trade agreements with South Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestme...62-1965.29

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.

with a just cause. and they were forced into terrorism. staying peacefull would have resulted in them being slaughtered.

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.

what one says in the house of commons and does is a big difference here. Britain had the biggest share in South African trade, yet Thatcher put money over moral principle.

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

nope, yours is. not oly was she not primeminister, but everyone knows that opinions change from being in opposition to being in goverment.

You simply cant swallow and accept the fact that your idol literaly sold out democratic values, for a disgusting regime.

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.

the UK was opposed to the death penalty then. so this is absolutly not supprising in any kind of way. the german goverment and also the french and others condem such verdicts. And I am sure the UK is harldy any different

He faced the death penalty, and partly because of her actions, he was given a life sentence instead.

the life sentence was given due to international pressure and not because of a unknown conservative mp.

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

which doesnt change the fact that she did it in the first place. And the word "forgiving" clearly shows that there was something which had to be forgiven.

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".

because trade is support! why do you think that thing called boycott exists!?

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

well then... go ahead and show me the "good things" which Thatcher did. And show how it outweighs the horrible things she did.

So far you have only given pathetic excuses for racists.

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.

I would actualy give you money to go into the blackest south african district of Johanesburg and scream that term into the streets, and I think some people would pay money to see what would then happen to you.

Tradeing with a nation is supporting that nation because it requires agreements through diplomatic ties on tax, customs duty and messures of transportation. trade also ensures economic groath - through that it ensures wealth and through that it insures social stability - in this cas a stability amongst the leading white minority - thereby it justifies their rule due to the fact that they can claim the preservation of social stability.

You ignore this! You ignore that nations all over the world have been boycotted in order to show them their place! And that the only ones which ignore such boycotts are those in support of such countries.
Iran - North Korea
China - Cuba
Irak - North Korea

In the end, you are simply ignoring that your idol made her hands dirty and cowerdly escaped standing for responsibility and thereby leaving a vacume for her supporters to fill with pathetic excuses for keeping up trade and therefor the support for one of the most disgusting regimes of the last century.

You fail, to see her through an objective lense!