god damn it, my correction ended up on a different page from the original

Fasces, I got sad when I read your post. Please read up about Northern Ireland before you comment further.

"I hadn't heard of the name Bobby Sands until someone brought him up on facebook in a debate this morning. From what I know I gather that they are terrorists who want Northern Island to be independent. I know that Thatcher isn't the only one who has had problems/scandals from events in Norther Island, but again I don't know the specifics"

To keep apolitical what we did in NI was illegal by anyone’s standards. My father was stationed there as a British soldier and even he said that he sympathised with the Irish after the way that we treated them (see Bloody Sunday).

To know why the original IRA were not classical “terrorists” requires reading about Michael Collins and the original conflict with Ireland in the 20s/30s. Agreed that the future IRA behaviour during the Troubles was not condonable – but Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers were effectively political protestors. I also do not believe that Ireland seeking independence is a “terrorist” stance – we did concede independence to India/Pakistan, the United States and most of our African colonies, and didn’t cede Ireland due to pig-headedness, of which Thatcher was an expert.

Your post seemed to say that Thatcher did well to keep the troublesome Irish from breaking away, in reality it’s more that we oppressed another group of people close to home. Some of the military checkpoints in Ireland were very reminiscent of, for example, the Turkish oppression of Kurdish areas today.

My post is more, never give into terrorism then lets keep oppressing the Irish.

I don't have that much interest in Ireland, so probably wont research more into it, its not like it matters that much to me and my live, given that its happening in a different country thats in a different continent from where I live.

Bloody Sunday happened in the 1970s and resulted in something like 20 deaths, I know that much. So as I said Thatcher wasn't the only one who had problems in Ireland.

Of course - any foreign ruler would have had problems in Ireland!

@SYnapse - seeking independence is obviously not a terrorist stance. Using terror as a means of advancing your arguement be it independence, animal welfare, anti-abortion or protesting about vat on pork pies is a terrorist stance. As I recall bobby sands' demands were things like he wanted to wear his own clothes and wanted release from having to work in prison. Both of these are laudable aims and every prisoner should be allow to protest about their conditions. But the govt also has a right to ultimately determine what the prison conditions are. I think we both know that if sands had been granted use of his own clothes and excused prison work he would have made new demands, he was very successful in raising his primary cause 'independence' and this would no doubt have continued regardless of how the govt responded to his demands. Fair play to anyone who protests and is prepared to sacrifice himself for his convictions, but his death is not the result of thatcher. I speak of course from a position of not being mrs T's biggest fan.

@SYnapse

I think you may be the first person on the internet not to immediately shoot down the IRA as a terrorist group and thus consider all my arguments from henceforth invalid- so thank you.

@Maniac

my problem with that idea is that terrorist actions have occurred throughout history. In Russia and America we call them revolutions, but in Palestine and Ireland we call it terrorism.

Sands demands were wearing his own clothes, no prison work, receiving a certain amount of mail per week, a certain amount of visits per week and one other thing that escapes me right now. It was demands of a POW status that had been given to the Irish up to the late 70's.

The demands were agreed upon verbally during the first hunger strike, and the Irish ended that hunger strike (they wouldn't have made greater demands). That agreement was then taken away and denied, and the second hunger strike began.

The IRA was on its way out and waning in popularity. My problem with Thatcher's stance was she needlessly killed 10 men. If you're against the IRA, your stance should be that her stance on it and the subsequent huge amount of media attention it got throughout the world (Iran changed the name of the street the British Embassy was on to Bobby Sands St the day after he died, giving the British Embassy in Iran the letter head that had Sand's name on it. Brilliant!) caused many to join the IRA and support them financially. French students walked through the streets of Paris chanting the IRA will conquer! Thatcher got reelected, but effectively ended any chance the British had of stamping out Northern Irish "terrorism"

"my problem with that idea is that terrorist actions have occurred throughout history. In Russia and America we call them revolutions, but in Palestine and Ireland we call it terrorism."
There is a clear distinction between rebellions, revolutions, civil wars and terrorism.

For example, the arab spring was not terrorism it was a revolution.

Britain got it wrong in Northern Ireland for many years and eventually they got it right, well done Tony Blair. Looking back now it was a courageous but a correct move.
History will just this kindly, not so the war in Iraq.

God, Fasces, you're so wrong. Take Syria for example, the revolution has now become a terrorist organisation.

I presume that you think everyone who opposes the West is a terrorist, and everyone who supports the West is a freedom-fighter.

@patizcool - I'm trying to use the word terrorism in a neutral way if that's possible. If you have a cause and use terror as a means of advancing that cause you are a terrorist. It doesn't matter for these purposes whether or not I agree with your cause or if history agrees with your cause. One should not point to, say,mandala's terrorist activities or the woman's suffrage movement and use them as a way of condoning all terrorism.

I is impossible to judge whether Thatcher's treatment of the IRA acted as a recruiting sergeant for their cause. I would suggest that it is impossible to get the right tone in treating terrorist groups, they are always seeking the oxygen of publicity but that doesn't mean that you have to keep giving in to demands in an attempt to win the publicity campaign.

The killing 3 IRA suspects (shot in the back) in a street in Gibraltar didn't help Thatcher ...

@nigeebaby - you may be right that the UK govt got it wrong concerning the north of Ireland. But whatever they would have done would have been wrong. Let me ask you a direct question, if mebyon kernow started using terrorism to advance their claims for independence, what would you do?

Define terrorism

Also nigeebaby if you don't want to run the risk of being shot in the back, don't plant car bombs. Democracy isn't perfect but works on basis that people debate their views. If you want to step outside peaceful means, then don't complain when the other side also use dirty tricks.

For completeness I have always supported the people of the north to determine their own future. I have never thought that violence helped them along that path. Personally I have two cousins (and therefore wider family) who live with effects of the birmingham pub bombings everyday. I once caused a bomb scare at the height of the troubles by parking my car for two minutes in the entrance of an army barracks. My car was distinctive as it had Irish number plates. If I'd had been shot on my way back to the car, I think I could only have blamed my own stupidity.

My definition of terrorism is simple - an organisation that uses terror to advance Their cause.

What like shooting people in the street ...... or doesn't that innocent until proved guilty matter if we think/assume/decide they are bad guys?

I'm not convinced that pre-trial executions are really something we should be condoning.

Nigeebaby - it is wrong to kill people in my opinion full stop. I do not think that bombing pubs because you believe in indepence or shooting IRA members in the back because you are acting for a state who believe in the union are right.

What I am saying is that if you take up arms and try to influence a debate by terror you shouldn't be surprised if force is met by force. Innocents on all sides die when people take up arms. The IRA as a media savvy organisation are bound to capitalise on their members being shot whilst unarmed, they would be foolish not to highlight this as state sponsored terrorism (to use their terms). But if you join a terrorist organisation I think you can expect the other side to play equally dirty. I'm not condoning the killing of anyone, innocent or guilty. I do not think people should use anything other than reasonable force when confronted with a bulgar for example, but I also do not think a bulgar should be surprised if some people use illegal force against them either.

I'd be surprised, considering you can set a pack of dogs on them and as long as they die on your property it's perfectly legal. Why use illegal force when you can release the hounds?

@Maniac

“One should not point to, say,mandala's terrorist activities or the woman's suffrage movement and use them as a way of condoning all terrorism.

No, if you're saying Mandela's and the women's suffarage movement can be condoned, you're saying terrorism is a legitimate method and condoning it- the end. You can't make distinctions based on history. History makes distinctions based on success, hence why the Irish Revolution by the Old IRA is considered a revolution and the Troubles concerned terrorists.

I [sic] is impossible to judge whether Thatcher's treatment of the IRA acted as a recruiting sergeant for their cause.”

No, it's very possible and is done in many, many books regarding the Irish hunger strike. It is also without doubt the hunger strike, specifically, that led to a huge surge in the Provisional IRA's ranks. Whether you want to blame that on Thatcher or not doesn't discredit the argument.

“but that doesn't mean that you have to keep giving in to demands in an attempt to win the publicity campaign.”

I agree on that point. I just believe the time the British chose to draw a line in the sand was the wrong one. They drew a line in the sand against prisoners rather than their active members who were still outside. I think it was poorly approached and, as I said before, led to a huge recruitment. If they had taken a different approach, trying to crush the IRA on the outside and giving in to the demands of the prisoners (or never taking the rights they originally had away), I think the IRA would have effectively been defeated.

“Also nigeebaby if you don't want to run the risk of being shot in the back, don't plant car bombs. Democracy isn't perfect but works on basis that people debate their views. If you want to step outside peaceful means, then don't complain when the other side also use dirty tricks.”

The British army discredited themselves in 1972 when they shot 13 innocent protestors. Up to that point, the IRA had no problem with the British- their problem was with the Union, the mistreatment of Catholics (they took the approach of violence while others took the approach of peacefully protesting- 13 of them got shot in the back). The British Army IS a terrorist organization, and the respect they are given unquestioningly should be given to the IRA because they use the SAME EXACT TACTICS OF TERRORISM!

The Northern Ireland of the 60's and 70's was very similar to the US of the 50's and 60's. The difference is that the IRA (Black Panthers) were the ones that made more gains than the peaceful protestors (MLK/ civil rights activists). I don't think anyone is saying they're happy the IRA took the policies they did, but certain things have to be done when little else is available. You also have to remember that the moves for Civil Rights in America were conflicting with the US national guard, and domestic forces. The Irish were killed by foreign forces! The British army was in Northern Ireland, or were supposed to be, as an intermediate force because the RUC was so fucked up in their dealings with Catholics as opposed to protestants. When the British Army shot those people in Derry, they changed the entire situation.

My main case is this:
The IRA used similar policies that other revolutionaries have used in order to advance their cause for independence as well as protect Catholics from Unionist forces (the UDA) as well as the biased RUC. They were condemned by all sides as terrorists, with little attention being given to the UDA. The British, seeing the lopsided effect and trying to prevent escalation, without condemning the UDA or RUC publicly, sent armed forces to Ireland. They opened fire on innocent civilians and blamed the IRA who had no part whatsoever in bloody sunday. They covered this up for 40 years. The army continued to use terror as a tactic as the IRA changed their targets from Unionists forces to UK forces in all capacities. Most of their attacks (sniper shots) were on forces that worked for the UK armed forces (RUC, prison guards, British forces). They made no distinction whether they were on duty or off. Most of their bomb attacks, and listen up because this is important, were either on military/police/prison forces or there was a warning before hand because it was an economic target rather than a target to kill civilians. The UDA in response to this, picked and chose Catholics who they deemed Catholic and innocent to kill in retaliation. The Hunger Strike happened, and I've typed enough on that.

Was the IRA right to use terrorism? No. Were the British forces right to shoot innocent people or IRA members without trial? No. No one was right in this situation, but I do understand the IRA's point of view, and personally, believe that their argument stands up better than the Unionists or the British argument. Regardless, thank god this has been all but settled. And to get back to the main point, Thatcher's a shrew of a woman, and I'll remember the people who she killed and ruined rather than her on the day of her funeral.

@Maniac

Last note, I think you make good points, and see your arguments as logical, I simply have a different viewpoint and disagree with who was right (less wrong).

@patizcool - thx for approaching this difficult subject sensitively.

I was trying to use the term terrorist neutrally if that's possible. Ie one who advances their cause using terror. I specifically didn't want to condone mandala or woman's sufferage or condemn Irish terrorist. My point was the IRA were a terrorist organisation.

I take your point about the British army perhaps being regarded as a terrorist organisation by my definition. But there is a huge difference. The shooting of the 13 Bloody Sunday protestors was not designed by the organisation to instill terror within the republican movement. Some trigger happy para's and their commanders acted disgracefully, but the British army as a whole in all there years during the troubles did not direct terrorism. To call them terrorist would be akin to calling all north of ireland Catholics terrorists because of what some Catholics did.

I think bobby sands and his fellow hunger strikers galvanised opinion of the nationalist community, they played thatcher and her govt, and raised their profile and their cause immensely. I honestly believe that if thatcher would have allowed Bobby Sands to dress in his own clothes and associate more freely, he would have picked another issue like to highlight his cause. By saying thatcher was the recruiting sergeant demonises the self sacrifice of the hunger strikers.

A great article on Thatcher
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/04/10/margaret-thatcher-exposed-the-infantile-illusions-of-socialism/

Sadly such a great international stateswoman whos personal philosophies were flawed and unsustainable, she believed there was no such thing as society, it sound nonsensical today but this philosophy gained traction from 2 distinct social groups, the right-wingers who believe in unbridled capitalism and low taxes if it makes ever richer, it was also very popular amongst the working class strivers who believed that they could climb the social and class ladder. Thatcher gave them the confidence to buy their stake in UK plc either through shares or property, she thought this would lead the country from the grip of the unions and the socialists.
Sadly the economic policy she espoused and championed was a recipe for mass unemployment, huge regional pockets of under-skilled workers that were effectively unemployable, economic boom and bust and economic growth based on the premise of ever increasing personal debt.
It was good while it lasted but unfortunately came crashing down to earth by the early '90's causing a second wave of financial misery and economic strife.
We learnt a lot from Thatcher, we learnt how not to run an economy, we learnt that Friedman was not as smart as Keynes and that ideology, no matter how strong your beliefs, does not defy reality.
Thatcher meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people but the idea that society does not exist and it's every man for himself was naive and simplistic, the fact that she was allowed to get as far as she did with her social experiment before being unceremoniously deposed shows us too the parlous state of our politics and our politicians at the time from both the left and the right.
Thankfully modern day politics is a bit more savvy, but the economic tidal wave she left behind with the deregulation of financial markets become the financial tsunami that devastated world markets 5 years ago.
The only thing that has brought an end to old-fashioned unfettered capitalism was Thatchers ill-advised simplistic view that all the ills of the world can be resolved by robust uncontrolled free market supply and demand economics.
So I say thank you to Margaret Thatcher for proving to the world that modern economies`cannot be run with a simple capitalist philosophy and that supply side economics was an economic theory that could not withstand the rigours of the real world.
Far from advancing capitalist economics she has led us to a world of market based social democracies. The lesson she taught us with her socio-economic experiment did not come cheap but who was to say economic evolution would have been better than the revolution she brought us in the '80's.
I some how get the feeling we would have ended up where we are now whatever but the process could have better managed if the people leading us had been better managers.
Thatcher did her best, in political terms she was a successful leader, in economic terms she tried something and it failed. I can't hate someone for naivety, sadly Thatcher hated feminism, she was a little Englander, she didn't like foreigners.
Nowadays she would unite UKIP and the BNP and they be part of a more right-wing Conservative Party ..... instead we have Cameron & Osborne, it hardly seems real.......

"Imagine" - John Lennon