Jump to content

Margaret Thatcher dies of a stroke.


Milfner

Recommended Posts

Why are we debating Mandela? He was a terrorist! Now you can argue about whether his cause was justified or not, but surely to call a guy who was responsible for leading a campaign of violence and bombings against both governmental and civilian targets 'a terrorist' isn't really beyond the pale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused as to why there has to be an underlining reason to why the flag is being waved or why it is viewed as stupid. Its their belief that she did good, they are paying their respects. Surely its as simple as its the British flag, she was the British Prime Minister. I very much doubt anyone waving the flag has thought that they would be making a statement that is on a political level. Or am I missing something?

Edited by Houlston
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that article has so many falsehoods  ... your header is a tad harsh .... We (the UK) sold him arms as we did to plenty of people who didn't commit genocide  ..To suggest we "helped" him commit genocide is akin to me saying you killed an Iraqi because you paid taxes to the Uk govt

Actually Thatcher's involvement was a little more hands-on than that.  Don't you remember arms to Iraq, the trial of the Matrix Churchill people which collapsed when Alan Clarke admitted the government knew exactly what they were selling?

 

Here's a piece from the Guardian.

 

We made a poison gas plant for them.  We knew at the time it was to be used to gas people to death.

 

It doesn't get much worse than that.

 

 

Britain's dirty secret

Thursday 6 March 2003 08.17 GMT

 

A chemical plant which the US says is a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985 behind the backs of the Americans, the Guardian can disclose.

Documents show British ministers knew at the time that the £14m plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production.

Senior officials recorded in writing that Saddam Hussein was actively gassing his opponents and that there was a "strong possibility" that the chlorine plant was intended by the Iraqis to make mustard gas. At the time, Saddam was known to be gassing Iranian troops in their thousands in the Iran-Iraq war.

But ministers in the then Thatcher government none the less secretly gave financial backing to the British company involved, Uhde Ltd, through insurance guarantees.

Paul Channon, then trade minister, concealed the existence of the chlorine plant contract from the US administration, which was pressing for controls on such exports.

He also instructed the export credit guarantee department (ECGD) to keep details of the deal secret from the public.

The papers show that Mr Channon rejected a strong plea from a Foreign Office minister, Richard Luce, that the deal would ruin Britain's image in the world if news got out: "I consider it essential everything possible be done to oppose the proposed sale and to deny the company concerned ECGD cover".

The Ministry of Defence also weighed in, warning that it could be used to make chemical weapons.

But Mr Channon, in line with Mrs Thatcher's policy of propping up the dictator, said: "A ban would do our other trade prospects in Iraq no good".

The British taxpayer was even forced to write a compensation cheque for £300,000 to the German-owned company after final checks on the plant, completed in May 1990, were interrupted by the outbreak of the Gulf war.

The Falluja 2 chlorine plant, 50 miles outside Baghdad, near the Habbaniya airbase, has been pinpointed by the US as an example of a factory rebuilt by Saddam to regain his chemical warfare capability.

Last month it featured in Colin Powell's dossier of reasons why the world should go to war against Iraq, which was presented to the UN security council.

Spy satellite pictures of Falluja 2 identifying it as a chemical weapons site were earlier published by the CIA, and a report by Britain's joint intelligence committee, published with Tony Blair's imprimatur last September, also focused on Falluja 2 as a rebuilt plant "formerly associated with the chemical warfare programme".

UN weapons inspectors toured the Falluja 2 plant last December and Hans Blix, the chief inspector, reported to the security council that the chemical equipment there might have to be destroyed.

But until now, the secret of Britain's knowing role in Falluja's construction has remained hidden.

Last night, Uhde Ltd's parent company in Dortmund, Germany, issued a statement confirming that their then UK subsidiary had built Falluja 2 for Iraq's chemical weapons procurement agency, the State Enterprise for Pesticide Production.

A company spokesman said: "This was a normal plant for the production of chlorine and caustic soda. It could not produce other products".

The British government's intelligence at the time, as shown in the documents, was that Iraq, which was having increasing difficulty in obtaining precursor chemicals on the legitimate market, intended to use the chlorine as a feedstock to manufacture such chemicals as epichlorohydrin and phosphorous trichloride. These in turn were used to make mustard gas and nerve agents.

Paul Channon, since ennobled as Lord Kelvedon, was last night holidaying on the Caribbean island of Mustique. He issued a statement through his secretary, who said: "He can't object to the story. So he's got no comment."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Union Jack, I don't think that because people have that flag in the crowd that that makes those people automatically "the Tory party" or that the Tory party are claiming ownership of the flag... I think to suggest that they are "the Tory party" is a huge and incorrect generalisation.

For me it is much like the point that was, rightfully, made on here the other day that just because people had a negative view on Lady Thatcher did not mean that they were the "labour party"

I partly agree. To make another generalisation, it’s really just a reflection of the character of Thatcher - she loved wrapping herself in the flag, and her supporters did/do too. I guess they think she stood up for Britain, or England or whatever, and that’s what they like to see, or feel happening. Personally, I don’t think she did in actuality, but that’s another matter.

...the people waving the flag did so because they wanted to in much the same way people do at Royal Weddings and Last night of the proms  .. and not because of any attempt by the Tory party to kidnap the flag

 

Over the past couple of years we have seen the Olympics where crowds have waved the UJ, we have seen those posh people getting married, again UJ being waved by crowds.

The thing is that the Olympics, and maybe during the World Cup (with the St. George’s flag) it’s a unity thing - you get a complete range of people flag waving. The Proms and this thingy today are (as was Thatcher) nothing to do with unity, but to do with a different sense of identity, a marking of differences, not unity. That’s why it grates with many people. Harmless, but it doesn’t sit right with many. Just like when politicians pose on tanks in combat gear, or use the nations emblems for political ends.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

:-) - ahhh Tony I must admit you do try, mostly fail, but you do try. Mrs Thatcher would have loved you and probably adopted you to replace Mark

 

 

that's a "No" then :)

 

Tony - as someone who fails to answer any points ever raised (other than with a you know what ahhh .....) then as said before I aint going to play your games especially as you are not exactly discussing the subject as it was mentioned. Anyway onwards and upwards.

 

Got any views on the success or failure of the political nature of the whole thing?

 

 

so in other words I was right  ... Do I get to close down a  coal mine ?

 

you can defer to a stock answer but you made a bold claim and I merely asked you to prove it , that you haven't , suggests there is no credence to your post 

 

so in the absence of any evidence it is my view that the people waving the flag did so because they wanted to in much the same way people do at Royal Weddings and Last night of the proms  .. and not because of any attempt by the Tory party to kidnap the flag

 

You see Tony every now and again we have to show that you are aking a mistake : EDIT previous words were a bit harsh - sorry

I wrote - and it was quoted

 

 

why do those sad people think that waving the Union Jack is in some way appropriate? Do the Tory party "own" that? hmmmm

 

 

Now the fact that this was a very political party, agreed? Why was the union jack being waved by members of the crowd? You I think, and apologies if directly not you but I am sure you "liked" a few posts, were part of a group on here who were moaning about the whole dignity and respect thing re the funeral. The coffin was draped in the flag, again why exactly? You see that is not what you are saying, so sorry old bean once again you have been shown up a bit, didn't want to do it, but as said c'est la vie. I am sure that pictures of anti-Thatcher demo's where the flag is used and political ,materials from other parties will in your opinion show it to be OK. But that has no relevance whatsoever to the funeral, does it?

 

Over the past couple of years we have seen the Olympics where crowds have waved the UJ, we have seen those posh people getting married, again UJ being waved by crowds. For a funeral though, and again you are the ones that said it should be treated with respect to see supporters of Thatcher waving the flag, you have to question what the motives are / were. As said I think that the people that were there and especially those that waved flags etc are nothing more than very sad. I appreciate you may well have been there with your UJ but answer me this, don't you think there is a real danger of making political statements associated with the flag of the whole nations is somewhat questionable?

 

I suspect I wont get any sort of sensible answer, if at all, but as said I have come to expect that. C'est la vie mon ami

 

 

sigh

 

I said in my very first post she was PM of the UK so of course you would expect her flag to be draped in the Union Flag ,as was Winston Churchill who also had the Union flag  .. they served the country and thus it's only appropriate  the flag is draped over the coffin  .. why Ted Heath didn't get one I don't know but as I already stated ALL ex PM's should have been treated equally imo so don't blame me for that one

 

the people waving flags in the street are doing so because they wish to do so not because the Tory party made them do so , maybe some people just like waving flags , you'd have to ask them

 

but i'll say it again other than your false "claim" here on VT  I've not seen it reported that the Tories Hijacked the flag .. and thus I asked for some sources on this story , I'd be genuinely interested to read them to see if they are nutjobs or the general view of the man on the street

Edited by tonyh29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

that article has so many falsehoods  ... your header is a tad harsh .... We (the UK) sold him arms as we did to plenty of people who didn't commit genocide  ..To suggest we "helped" him commit genocide is akin to me saying you killed an Iraqi because you paid taxes to the Uk govt

Actually Thatcher's involvement was a little more hands-on than that.  Don't you remember arms to Iraq, the trial of the Matrix Churchill people which collapsed when Alan Clarke admitted the government knew exactly what they were selling?

 

Here's a piece from the Guardian.

 

We made a poison gas plant for them.  We knew at the time it was to be used to gas people to death.

 

It doesn't get much worse than that.

 

 

Britain's dirty secret

Thursday 6 March 2003 08.17 GMT

 

A chemical plant which the US says is a key component in Iraq's chemical warfare arsenal was secretly built by Britain in 1985 behind the backs of the Americans, the Guardian can disclose.

Documents show British ministers knew at the time that the £14m plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production.

Senior officials recorded in writing that Saddam Hussein was actively gassing his opponents and that there was a "strong possibility" that the chlorine plant was intended by the Iraqis to make mustard gas. At the time, Saddam was known to be gassing Iranian troops in their thousands in the Iran-Iraq war.

But ministers in the then Thatcher government none the less secretly gave financial backing to the British company involved, Uhde Ltd, through insurance guarantees.

Paul Channon, then trade minister, concealed the existence of the chlorine plant contract from the US administration, which was pressing for controls on such exports.

He also instructed the export credit guarantee department (ECGD) to keep details of the deal secret from the public.

The papers show that Mr Channon rejected a strong plea from a Foreign Office minister, Richard Luce, that the deal would ruin Britain's image in the world if news got out: "I consider it essential everything possible be done to oppose the proposed sale and to deny the company concerned ECGD cover".

The Ministry of Defence also weighed in, warning that it could be used to make chemical weapons.

But Mr Channon, in line with Mrs Thatcher's policy of propping up the dictator, said: "A ban would do our other trade prospects in Iraq no good".

The British taxpayer was even forced to write a compensation cheque for £300,000 to the German-owned company after final checks on the plant, completed in May 1990, were interrupted by the outbreak of the Gulf war.

The Falluja 2 chlorine plant, 50 miles outside Baghdad, near the Habbaniya airbase, has been pinpointed by the US as an example of a factory rebuilt by Saddam to regain his chemical warfare capability.

Last month it featured in Colin Powell's dossier of reasons why the world should go to war against Iraq, which was presented to the UN security council.

Spy satellite pictures of Falluja 2 identifying it as a chemical weapons site were earlier published by the CIA, and a report by Britain's joint intelligence committee, published with Tony Blair's imprimatur last September, also focused on Falluja 2 as a rebuilt plant "formerly associated with the chemical warfare programme".

UN weapons inspectors toured the Falluja 2 plant last December and Hans Blix, the chief inspector, reported to the security council that the chemical equipment there might have to be destroyed.

But until now, the secret of Britain's knowing role in Falluja's construction has remained hidden.

Last night, Uhde Ltd's parent company in Dortmund, Germany, issued a statement confirming that their then UK subsidiary had built Falluja 2 for Iraq's chemical weapons procurement agency, the State Enterprise for Pesticide Production.

A company spokesman said: "This was a normal plant for the production of chlorine and caustic soda. It could not produce other products".

The British government's intelligence at the time, as shown in the documents, was that Iraq, which was having increasing difficulty in obtaining precursor chemicals on the legitimate market, intended to use the chlorine as a feedstock to manufacture such chemicals as epichlorohydrin and phosphorous trichloride. These in turn were used to make mustard gas and nerve agents.

Paul Channon, since ennobled as Lord Kelvedon, was last night holidaying on the Caribbean island of Mustique. He issued a statement through his secretary, who said: "He can't object to the story. So he's got no comment."

 

Chlorine .. as in chlorine used to purify water .. you do know Iraq depends on specialized equipment and chemicals to purify its water supply don't you ?

 

 

no of course it must have been for mustard gas  ... I bet Tefal are shitting themselves about now that the US govt are about to declare war on them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I see they've let an airline stewardess in.  That's nice.  She seems pleased to be there.

 

HappyCam_zpscfe45520.jpg

Does anyone else find this picture quite disturbing

 

 

 

Yes.  There's something quite eerily fanatical and idolatrous about Osborne's expression.  I think he needs help.

 

Or perhaps he's just freaked out at finding himself sitting between two people who appear to be impersonating Eva Braun and Frau Thatcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â