Thatcher and Blair, 2/2/82-7/7/05

[Chessman]

I know there will be some of you who will disagree, and some who may agree, but thats the beauty of discussion forums.

I believe,

that in 1982, Margaret Thatcher allowed the Argentinian invasion, she knew they were making noises in that direction, but did nothing, at the time, she was not doing well in the polls.

I believe,

That this present goverment, ludicrous as it sounds, allowed this terrorist attack to happen, they may not have known when and where, but they knew it was going to happen, yet they downgraded the terrorist alert, and now, no enquiry. very fishy.

Just wondered what others might think on this.

[Loosehead]

Cobblers I'm afraid Chessman times 2:

In 1982 Argentina was being run by a military Junta, General Galtieri invaded the falklands to appease factions within his own country who where threatening a military coup. How could the British governement allow or indeed prevent invasion when they are thousand s of miles away, all they could do is what they did, retake the islands after sailing down there.

Do you seriously believe that the Governement abhorrant as they are knew about the 7/7 attacks in advance and didn't stop them, get real!

See my question in H&M about conspiracy thoeries and leave the magic mushrooms alone!

[mike1222]

Chessman, you are entitled to your opinion. Any idea where Elvis is hiding

[jno]

The Argentines had been muttering about retaking the Falklands, and the British had beenignoring them, or perhaps just not noticing - while at the same size reducing the size of the navy and depriving Falkland islanders of citizenship rights. This may well have led the Argentines to think they could get away with it.

I don't think this was intentional on the part of Thatcher, more likely just bungling. (A fair question, though.) And I think the same about the London bombings. Never underestimate the c*ckup theory of history.

[jno]

sorry, meant to include the wikipedia link I confirmed all this from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_Conflict

[lizzierose]

the american government had intelligence on 9/11 over a year before it happened and did absolutely nothing and we're pretty chummy with them at the moment

[surfer mike]

I knew these tales would gain in credence as time wore on..

It seems some peoples hatred of blair knows no bounds.

total bunkum!

[metagirl]

can't comment on thatcher, but i don't think blair would allow the attack to happen. i agree that there were lapses in intelligence, possibly, and c*ck ups aplenty, but no intent on the side of the government to allow it to occur. Should be a public enquiry though - a shame. Won't do anything to help build the public trust.

[Oneeyedvic]

Just to address Surfer Mike's point:

I would just point out that I absolutely loathe Blair and his cronies, but firmly do not believe in your theory.

[loudickson71]

If you think that then I wonder what you won't believe. You cannot allow yourself to jump to wild conclusions like this. What next? Belief in God?

[woofgang]

also think of the kudos if Blair could have reported that he had stopped 7/7, arrested the bombers, disarmed the bombs etcetera, his ratings would have been huge!!

as far as the Falklands goes, we now have thebenefit of hindsight which is a wonderful thing!

[LazyGun]

As a student and a firebrand leftie at the time of Mrs Ts premiership, I often thought she had used the Falklands as a way of diverting attention from the domestic situation.At the time I thought she might have somehow "engineered" the situation. Now I think it was just an accident of timing. Someone else has mentioned the "******" theory of government, which is a far more likely explanation.

I cannot believe this government, or one of any political hue for that matter would allow a terrorist attack of that magnitude through. I am cynical enough to believe that governments may well play on peoples fears to get through legislation making their life easier, but that is a far cry from being effectively complicit in murder of their own civilians. Nor do I believe the US government had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

In both cases, the sheer number of people involved would mean a definitive leak by now.

[Chessman]

Loosehead, under the Callaghan goverment, when Argentina was making the same invasion noises, David Owen, the foreign minister, let it be known that a nuclear sub was in the area, and Argentina backed off, Margaret Thatcher did nothing, but she knew an invasion was imminent.

As for 7/7, I never said they knew about it, what I said was that they knew there would be a terrorist attack, and as such, the country was put on alert for it, knowing one was likely, they still downgraded, thereby, allowing it to happen.

[Loosehead]

Five years later the situation was very different the military junta was deparate, they had a huge economic problem, raging inflation and a public ready to revolt. Not to mention many military factions planning how they would seize power. The patriotic fervour created by the invasion would strenghten Galtieri, unfortunately when they where booted out of the Falklands his worst fears where realised.

Many anti Thatcher comentators mention the nuclear sub but what use is a nuclear sub unless we are going to anihilate them. Are you saying that Callaghan was ready to press the button. Worse than useless, it us took eight weeks to get there as it is what could Thatcher have done, I welcome your suggestions, there are many analyses, a brief one in wikipedia is mentioned above.

As for 7/7 down grading as you put it does not "allow it to happen" you make it sound as if they new of the plans. There are no doubt countless plans going on at the moment, all we can do is be as vigilant as possible.

The true damage of terrorism is not in the bombs and bullets reigned against us but in what we do to ourselves how we restrict our own lives, that's what the terrorists want us to do, they want us to fear what might happen.

[Chessman]

Yes mike, under your bed.

[Chessman]

Loosehead, there wasn't a sub out there in 82, they just let it be known that there was one, bluff, and it worked.

[Loosehead]

I know there really wasn't a sub in the area and it was 1977. The point is as far as Argentina was concerned it was there right? So you say they backed off because of it, why do you think that was? Did they really think we would use nukes on them? or where they afraid of the dozen conventional torpedoes? As mentioned above the situation was very different 5 years later in 1982, Galtieri had nothing to lose.

[Gevs1966]

Can you explain exactly how downgrading the terror alert "allowed it to happen"????

Could you then tell me exactly how upgrading the terror alert would stop me from walking on a tube with a load of explosives with the intention of blowing myself and others around me to kingdom come?????

Get Real!!!

[LATECOMER]

Chessman, I take it this question is tongue in cheek!!!!!!! If not, may i suggest Albran...! That should shift it.

[Chessman]

I really shouldn't be surprised at the tone of some of the answers, but I am, I expected a bit of flak, but not the way some of its phrased, it was a serious point, and my belief, some of you have given me the benefit, and treated it as serious, even if you didn't agree, I thank those of you who did.

[spudqueen]

I watched a programme in 1981 which was about a Royal Navy ship which patrolled the waters around the Falkland Islands to protect them during the warmer months (I suppose that there was no threat of invasion during the winter months). This ship was on it's last tour of duty in the South Atlantic as the Thatcher government wanted to save money and thought that there was no real threat to the Falkland Islands. Lo and behold what happens the first spring that the ships isn't there? At least I was one person who knew where the Falklands were when it all kicked off!