Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...Hilter was an old man. 0.o

 Wyrmalla wrote:
whereas glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes

You mean hunger strikes from a terrorist organisation that tried to assassinate her, and had carried out bombings and murders across the country and in Northern Ireland?

 Albatross wrote:
Right. Stop. Stop now.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject has long since ceased to be cute.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
87 is a good run. With her debate skills I am sure the Iron Lady had St. Pete all tied in knots in minutes.

I don't think she's heading upstairs... That elevator is bound for the basement...

I would respectfully beg to disagree.

I'm also not sure that saying she's going to hell is necessarily the kind of respect due an old lady who has just passed away.

I don't want to stir this pot, but I'm pretty sure she'd have Hell ship shape Bristol fashion in 6 months.

For once i agree with you, as a Scot i find it remarkably difficult to mourn her, as a matter of fact i dont.


Hells to nice a place for Thatcher, i'm sorry MOD's but try and see it from a Scot's view, she ruined my country and her industries.
Thank whoever's in charge that she's gone.

 Albatross wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes...

Right. Stop. Stop now.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject has long since ceased to be cute.

I have a hunger strike from 9 to about 11.30, then I have a minute Fat Tuesday! mmmm....lunchhh...

 Wyrmalla wrote:
She let ten men die and set back peace between Ireland and Britain back by years by radicalizing and already outspoken nationalist movement. It was her heavy handedness that's caused such low opinions from those that actually had to deal with the results.

You make it sound like there hadn't been violence before she took office, as if events like Bloody Sunday hadn't already fanned the flames, and that the Republican movement in Northern Ireland was not already firmly committed to using violence to achieve their objectives before she took office.

(for the record I was born and bred in Northern Ireland, during the Troubles)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
whereas glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes

You mean hunger strikes from a terrorist organisation that tried to assassinate her, and had carried out bombings and murders across the country and in Northern Ireland?

I'll make the point that I'm not disagreeing that the men involved should have been punished. What I'm saying is that there was no need for them to be made exampled of. When it came to handling the opposition she would turn it up to eleven with her response. They may have been terrorists, but I hardly think that their treatment during their imprisonment was humane. You don't get rid of terrorism by martyring its members. =/

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I'll make the point that I'm not disagreeing that the men involved should have been punished. What I'm saying is that there was no need for them to be made exampled of. When it came to handling the opposition she would turn it up to eleven with her response. They may have been terrorists, but I hardly think that their treatment during their imprisonment was humane. You don't get rid of terrorism by martyring its members. =/

Are you laboring under the assumption that it was an involuntary hunger strike or something?

 Ketara wrote:

She broke the Unions, something that desperately needed to be done. She was the first female Prime Minister. She stood up for Britain remarkably well on the international stage. She was honest, and you got exactly what it said on the package when you voted for her (something lacking in politics today).

Her domestic policies were often unsavoury, and I disagree with many of her privatisations. Others I think were horribly damaging in the short term, but beneficial in the long term.

History as a general rule of thumb looks rather well on old Maggie. She's gone down as one of the greats next to Disraeli, Churchill, or Gladstone.

I disagree, the Unions needed their necks wound back in, not the utter exterminations she unleashed. Once she had rid of them, what did she do? Close the mines, close the factories and outsource.

I remember well, her tour of a car factory, it was previously a British manufacturer and was now a Japanese car firm. She touted loudly that all the jobs had been saved, but entirely glossed over where the profit would now be going, out of the country.

 Ketara wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Arguably that's due to the Second World War overshadowing much of that kind of thing in popular media. You can contrast or gloss over those appalling statements with the other things he's done. For a lot of people, in regards to Mrs Thatcher, there isn't very much of anything to use as gloss. Falklands and... ?

She broke the Unions, something that desperately needed to be done. She was the first female Prime Minister. She stood up for Britain remarkably well on the international stage. She was honest, and you got exactly what it said on the package when you voted for her (something lacking in politics today).

Her domestic policies were often unsavoury, and I disagree with many of her privatisations. Others I think were horribly damaging in the short term, but beneficial in the long term.

History as a general rule of thumb looks rather well on old Maggie. She's gone down as one of the greats next to Disraeli, Churchill, or Gladstone.

Oh i'm sorry suffering from selective memory are we. Disraeli(7/10), Gladstone(7/10), Churchill (0/10) he was only a good war leader, he was not a good prim minister he was also a massive opportunist, he changed from the Cons to the Liberals during the reforms to gain him votes then went back to the Cons when it suited him.


Thatcher (-10/10)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRm5CPERBEdUSvJUpjw1kk10V5kyRIIBnskOM8-_GvY7LOvzxq-

 Seaward wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I'll make the point that I'm not disagreeing that the men involved should have been punished. What I'm saying is that there was no need for them to be made exampled of. When it came to handling the opposition she would turn it up to eleven with her response. They may have been terrorists, but I hardly think that their treatment during their imprisonment was humane. You don't get rid of terrorism by martyring its members. =/

Are you laboring under the assumption that it was an involuntary hunger strike or something?

I'm making the point that the situation shouldn't have gotten that far. Allowing people that are calling you and your government oppressive to starve to death in one of your prisons doesn't go ways to dispelling that idea...

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I'm making the point that the situation shouldn't have gotten that far. Allowing people that are calling you and your government oppressive to starve to death in one of your prisons doesn't go ways to dispelling that idea...

So if I decide to starve myself while shouting about how my current government is oppressive, your view is that they should cave to my demands simply because I've chosen to kill myself?

Or, even better force feed you while claiming you aren't oppressed.

I always have been pretty iffy about her stand towards German reunification, but her internal politics are not for me to judge.

I do find it funny that there are quite a few US flags posting in here that are always quick to tell people with the wrong flag to back off.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes...

Right. Stop. Stop now.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject has long since ceased to be cute.

She let ten men die and set back peace between Ireland and Britain back by years by radicalizing and already outspoken nationalist movement.

She let ten terrorists kill themselves, because they didn't enjoy being treated as the common criminals that they were instead of 'political prisoners'. They weren't imprisoned for their radical views. Bobby Sands was holding weapons for murderers and may have been one himself. Other hungerstrikers definitely were murderers. I'm not sure many people would shed tears if Al Qaeda terrorists tried to starve themselves to death.

The Provisional IRA were not valiant freedom fighters. They killed innocent members of the public on purpose, not to mention the fact that they tried to kill our PM. Guess who that was.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

She broke the Unions, something that desperately needed to be done. She was the first female Prime Minister. She stood up for Britain remarkably well on the international stage. She was honest, and you got exactly what it said on the package when you voted for her (something lacking in politics today).

Her domestic policies were often unsavoury, and I disagree with many of her privatisations. Others I think were horribly damaging in the short term, but beneficial in the long term.

History as a general rule of thumb looks rather well on old Maggie. She's gone down as one of the greats next to Disraeli, Churchill, or Gladstone.

I disagree, the Unions needed their necks wound back in, not the utter exterminations she unleashed. Once she had rid of them, what did she do? Close the mines, close the factories and outsource.

I remember well, her tour of a car factory, it was previously a British manufacturer and was now a Japanese car firm. She touted loudly that all the jobs had been saved, but entirely glossed over where the profit would now be going, out of the country.

What profit!?

British Leyland had been bled dry by union activity. The cars were crap and didn't sell. They fell to bits, almost literally! It was the same story across the board. Many of the state-owned industries you lament only stayed open thanks to massive subsidies. They just weren't profitable. They couldn't compete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news: Seaward and I appear to agree on something. Normal service to be resumed shortly.

In other news: Seaward and I appear to agree on something. Normal service to be resumed shortly.

Then this is really going to blow your mind.

Ayah, I don't get the argument on that. If your organization is blowing things up, you having a hunger strike doesn't strike me as appropriate. That is a method of peaceful resistance. You can't have it both ways. You can either blow stuff up, or pull a Gandhi. If you're part of an organization that blows stuff, you should be shot in the first place no?

If someone's protesting by going on hunger strike its hardly proper to actually allow themselves to starve to death. It just jumps right into their hands. Under her the troubles in Ireland only intensified.

I'm not agreeing with the motives of those who died. I'm saying that given the circumstances it altered public into think these people were freedom fighters. Terrorists like Al Queda are fighting for something that's not a nationalist issue for the British people. The actions of the Hunger Strikers before they died becomes a moot point when the bare points issue that they stood for was Irish nationalism. Their extremism paled when equally extreme actions were taken against them.

 Albatross wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...glazing over things like the Hunger Strikes...

Right. Stop. Stop now.

Your lack of knowledge on this subject has long since ceased to be cute.

She let ten men die and set back peace between Ireland and Britain back by years by radicalizing and already outspoken nationalist movement.

She let ten terrorists kill themselves, because they didn't enjoy being treated as the common criminals that they were instead of 'political prisoners'. They weren't imprisoned for their radical views. Bobby Sands was holding weapons for murderers and may have been one himself. Other hungerstrikers definitely were murderers. I'm not sure many people would shed tears if Al Qaeda terrorists tried to starve themselves to death.

The Provisional IRA were not valiant freedom fighters. They killed innocent members of the public on purpose, not to mention the fact that they tried to kill our PM. Guess who that was.

I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves Ghandi done it and got nothing but our respect, however dislike towards the Brit/Indian government increased because they did not try to stop Ghandi starving himself.

I will not mourne the loss of Thatcher, infact her death seemed to take forever.


finally, the embassy situation with the S.A.S was a complete and utter fiasco.



P.S i like how it is mostly Scot's and the Welsh, traditionally labour who don't seem to mond but N.I's and the English are suddenly upset.
I'm not in favour of Scottish independance but when i look at Thatcher and the torries, i can see why some people find it appealing.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

In other news: Seaward and I appear to agree on something. Normal service to be resumed shortly.

Then this is really going to blow your mind.

Ayah, I don't get the argument on that. If your organization is blowing things up, you having a hunger strike doesn't strike me as appropriate. That is a method of peaceful resistance. You can't have it both ways. You can either blow stuff up, or pull a Gandhi. If you're part of an organization that blows stuff, you should be shot in the first place no?

I must say it is very weird being on your side of the fence for once. You are correct you can't blow stuff up and be peaceful.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves Ghandi done it and got nothing but our respect, however dislike towards the Brit/Indian government increased because they did not try to stop Ghandi starving himself.

What on earth are you babbling about? 'Ghandi done it'?

To be clear: Are you equating the actions of Ghandi a peaceful (if misguided) protestor with the actions of, for example, Francis Hughes, who killed two RUC police officers and a British soldier?





Because that's mad, even for Dakka.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

finally, the embassy situation with the S.A.S was a complete and utter fiasco.

Could you explain why you think this was a fiasco please?

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves

Any.

People can kill themselves any time they like, by whatever means they like, as far as I'm concerned, so long as they take no one else with them or cause undue loss of property to another.

 Seaward wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves

Any.

People can kill themselves any time they like, by whatever means they like, as far as I'm concerned, so long as they take no one else with them or cause undue loss of property to another.

Do you support voluntary euthanasia then?

And are you pro-choice?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Do you support voluntary euthanasia then?

And are you pro-choice?

Yes and yes.

PredaKhaine wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:

finally, the embassy situation with the S.A.S was a complete and utter fiasco.

Could you explain why you think this was a fiasco please?

Perhaps her saying that none of the terrorists should make it out alive. The SAS killed terrorists who has disarmed themselves and surrendered on her orders. One SAS operative was about to take a terrorist back into the building after he had been capture and shown on television to kill him. He was stopped however by another operative because it wasn't humane.

 Albatross wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


I'm sorry but under what circumstance is it ok to let people starve themselves Ghandi done it and got nothing but our respect, however dislike towards the Brit/Indian government increased because they did not try to stop Ghandi starving himself.

What on earth are you babbling about? 'Ghandi done it'?

To be clear: Are you equating the actions of Ghandi a peaceful (if misguided) protestor with the actions of, for example, Francis Hughes, who killed two RUC police officers and a British soldier?





Because that's mad, even for Dakka.

You're right i probebly should have said Ghandi went on hunger strick rather than "Ghandi done it"

And it's funny how selective people can be when trying to back up there point, sure your right Francis Hughes a word that i can not say or the MOD's will eat me, however it is worth pointing out that we walked into Ireland and shot people, then divided up the country according to our own needs, not our best moment in history.

Lets face it, on this subject we are never going to see eye to eye. You want to mention the IRA and prove your point that way, i'll mention the industries that Thatcher closed down and the millions of people left unemployed under her shameful regime, the IRA are "easy to disagree with" but so is Thatcher.

@wyrmalia - Evidence please.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


And it's funny how selective people can be when trying to back up there point, sure your right Francis Hughes a word that i can not say or the MOD's will eat me, however it is worth pointing out that we walked into Ireland and shot people, then divided up the country according to our own needs, not our best moment in history.

Yeah, I think we're pretty much done here, kidda.

 Albatross wrote:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


And it's funny how selective people can be when trying to back up there point, sure your right Francis Hughes a word that i can not say or the MOD's will eat me, however it is worth pointing out that we walked into Ireland and shot people, then divided up the country according to our own needs, not our best moment in history.

Yeah, I think we're pretty much done here, kidda.

I don't mean Thatcher done it, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:


Oh i'm sorry suffering from selective memory are we. Disraeli(7/10), Gladstone(7/10), Churchill (0/10) he was only a good war leader, he was not a good prim minister he was also a massive opportunist, he changed from the Cons to the Liberals during the reforms to gain him votes then went back to the Cons when it suited him.


Thatcher (-10/10)

Selective? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I personally am not too keen on Churchill myself, but as a historian, I can emphatically state they those three, plus Thatcher, are generally regarded by historians as 'Great' Prime Ministers, whilst the likes of say, Eden or Major, tend to be forgotten. Usually for their force of will, and the impact they had on Britain (good or bad).

As for your views on whether or not he was a good Prime Minister, well. Once you've had the pleasure of digging through the Churchill archive at Churchill College, Cambridge, reading stuff by his own hand, and dealing with the annoying fiddly yellow paper cataloguing system, I might be more inclined to listen to you on this one.

 Albatross wrote:
@wyrmalia - Evidence please.

A cursary read of the wikipedia page will give you

After the assault concluded, the police conducted an investigation into the siege and the deaths of the two hostages and five terrorists, including the actions of the SAS. The soldiers' weapons were taken away for examination and, the following day, the soldiers themselves were interviewed at length by the police at the regiment's base in Hereford.[56] There was controversy over the deaths of two terrorists in the telex room, where the male hostages were held. Hostages later said in interviews that they had persuaded their captors to surrender and television footage appeared to show them throwing weapons out of the window and holding a white flag. The two SAS soldiers who killed the men both stated at the inquest into the terrorists' deaths that they believed the men had been reaching for weapons before they were shot. The inquest jury reached the verdict that the soldiers' actions were justifiable homicide (later known as "lawful killing").

This documentary features statements from those involved that outright states that the SAS went out of their way to kill the terrorists. One of the SAS says that Thatcher did her best not to explicitly say "kill them all", but it was heavily implied on numerous occasions.

Wait, the SAS went out of their way to kill terrorists?! Say it ain't so...