Thatcher kicked the bucket.

[fr0d0]

Just heard about the death of Thatcher. Obviously my thoughts and prayers are with Satan and the rest of Hell at this difficult time.

[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.

[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.

[CapnAwesome]

Wow, nice soft-hearted liberals celebrating in the death of an elderly woman.

[Anomalocaris]

Wow, nice soft-hearted liberals celebrating in the death of an elderly woman.

We didn't actually kill her, did we?

[CapnAwesome]

Wow, nice soft-hearted liberals celebrating in the death of an elderly woman.

We didn't actually kill her, did we?

No, just digitally dancing on her grave.

[Tonus]

We didn't actually kill her, did we?

*takes a deep drag on a cigarette, narrows his eyes*

So just where were you when the victim passed away?

*raises eyebrow, waves cigarette menacingly*

[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!

[Darkstar]

[Rev. Rye]

For what it's worth, I work in an unpaid position as a music columnist on an anglophile blog. I was denied approval to post about this little movement on my blog:

Campaign set up to make 'Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead' Number One after Margaret Thatcher's death

The Facebook campaign is encouraging people to buy the song made famous in 'The Wizard Of Oz'

More Various Artists news, reviews, videos and tour dates
Buy Various Artists music from Amazon
433
Various Artists news RSS Feed

Campaign set up to make 'Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead' Number One after Margaret Thatcher's death

Photo: PA

A Facebook campaign to make 'Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead' Number One in the Official UK Singles Chart after the death of Margaret Thatcher is currently making headlines.

The song was written by EY Harburg and composed by Harold Arlen and originally featured in the 1939 film The Wizard Of Oz where it was sung by Judy Garland and the cast of Munchkins.

However, the 'Make "Ding dong the witch is dead" number 1 the week Thatcher dies' campaign is encouraging people to buy the Ella Fitzgerald version of the song, as the Garland version is too short to qualify for a chart position.

The Facebook group was initially set up in 2007.

The music world reacted with a mixture of jubilation and commiseration following the death of Thatcher earlier today (April 8).

Among the stars of the music world to pay tribute on Twitter to the former Prime Minister were One Direction member Harry Styles and former Spice Girl Geri Halliwell, who stated: "Thinking of our 1st Lady of girl power, Margaret Thatcher, a green grocer's daughter who taught me anything is possible."

Members of the indie-rock world were less congratulatory, however, with Blood Red Shoes asking, "Where's the party?" and North-East based band Frankie & The Heartstrings stating simply: "Cunt's dead."

Lady Thatcher died at the Ritz hotel in London at around 11am [BST] today after suffering a stroke.
Read more at http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/...7KOztqe.99

Apparently, just posting the message "Margaret Thatcher had died after a massive stroke" on Facebook has led to a massive clusterfuck that won't die down, so they won't bring up the topic on the main site at all.