Thatcher'backstabbed' Sikhs by advising India on 1984 Golden Temple raid

Britain's involvement in the massacre of hundreds of Sikh separatists in an Indian temple in 1984 will be urgently investigated, David Cameron has ordered.

Previously secret documents released by the Government have shown that a SAS officer was drafted in to help the Indian authorities with plans to remove dissident Sikhs from the Golden Temple at Amritsar, Sikhism's holiest shrine.

The plan was ordered with the full knowledge of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the documents say. Hundreds of Sikhs were killed in the attack.

Yesterday Sikh leaders said the revelations amounted to the British Government ‘backstabbing” and have called for all documentation surrounding the attack to be released.

In an operation called “Blue Star” Indian troops attacked the temple in June 1984 with an official death toll of 492 militants, pilgrims and soldiers. The country was plunged into some of the worst communal violence in its history following the attack. Sikh activists claim thousands died in the operation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10571223/Britain-backstabbed-Sikhs-by-advising-India-on-1984-Golden-Temple-raid.html

Not content with practically handing the Falkland Islands to Argentina on a plate a couple of years earlier costing hundreds of British lives to win them back she was colluding with India over the atrocity that took place at the Golden Temple at Amritsar in 1984.
Christ that was kept quiet but it's leaked out now of this country's involvement in something that cost hundreds if not thousands of lives in another country.

Absolutely shameful

They (their government) asked for advice in getting rid of terrorists (the article calls them militants?) and we gave them advice.

Seems exactly the way friends should act if you ask me.

I'm seeing this more and more often now - people dredging up things from 40, 100 years ago and saying "oooooh, look at what they did, isn't that terrible".

@andy
England largely took control of India and maintained it because the Sikhs sided and were extremely loyal to you      Put down revolts by other sepoys etc.

Might have been nice to show some gratitude when the Non-Sikh Indians took back control and took it out on them for years of English Rule. (part of the desire to separate PLUS a fact that should endear them to you    they Really Hate Muslims)

veya_victaous wrote:@andy
England largely took control of India and maintained it because the Sikhs sided and were extremely loyal to you      Put down revolts by other sepoys etc.

Might have been nice to show some gratitude when the Non-Sikh Indians took back control and took it out on them for years of English Rule. (part of the desire to separate PLUS a fact that should endear them to you    they Really Hate Muslims)

I'm afraid you wouldn't understand our culture, politics or state of affairs veya.

@andy
are you sure you wont change your position?     
They Really really hate Pakistanis

See they call them Terrorists and want them to go home

Irn Bru wrote: Britain's involvement in the massacre of hundreds of Sikh separatists in an Indian temple in 1984 will be urgently investigated, David Cameron has ordered.

Previously secret documents released by the Government have shown that a SAS officer was drafted in to help the Indian authorities with plans to remove dissident Sikhs from the Golden Temple at Amritsar, Sikhism's holiest shrine.

The plan was ordered with the full knowledge of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the documents say. Hundreds of Sikhs were killed in the attack.

Yesterday Sikh leaders said the revelations amounted to the British Government ‘backstabbing” and have called for all documentation surrounding the attack to be released.

In an operation called “Blue Star” Indian troops attacked the temple in June 1984 with an official death toll of 492 militants, pilgrims and soldiers. The country was plunged into some of the worst communal violence in its history following the attack. Sikh activists claim thousands died in the operation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10571223/Britain-backstabbed-Sikhs-by-advising-India-on-1984-Golden-Temple-raid.html

Not content with practically handing the Falkland Islands to Argentina on a plate a couple of years earlier costing hundreds of British lives to win them back she was colluding with India over the atrocity that took place at the Golden Temple at Amritsar in 1984.
Christ that was kept quiet but it's leaked out now of this country's involvement in something that cost hundreds if not thousands of lives in another country.

Absolutely shameful

Oh give over Irn this is pathetic, she won back the Falklands, which is no way as bad as an idiot who took us into a conflict where there was no weapons of mass destruction, in other words lied to the nation, allowed systematic torture to go on and created no doubt countless terrorists due to them believing extremists who claimed we are at war with Islam, yes nothing better than under Labours watch, of which has created not only countless bloodshed but years of resentment.

So all this is about is one SAS officer who we have no idea gave the go ahead to kill anyone or that his ideas were even used.

Sorry all you have here is we assisted the Indian Government and approved by Mrs Ghandi, that is all that is clear, we have no idea if they followed through with his plan or that the plan went wrong in anyway to how he advised it.

Utterly pathetic attempt to bash Maggie over this

don't forget didge, Maggie was responsible for all the ill's that plague Britain,she was also responsible for the miners strike,and even responsible for the indian attack on the temple,so certain people believe. in fact, she was the best prime minister we ever had,bar Churchill!

nicko wrote:don't forget didge, Maggie was responsible for all the ill's that plague Britain,she was also responsible for the miners strike,and even responsible for the indian attack on the temple,so certain people believe. in fact, she was the best prime minister we ever had,bar Churchill!

Not only that Nicko she was also adored by many Americans also, sadly some people always try to bring down great people.

How she is blamed for this event when all we have is one letter stating an officer is to assist in planning with no other details is a joke beyond belief!

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote: Britain's involvement in the massacre of hundreds of Sikh separatists in an Indian temple in 1984 will be urgently investigated, David Cameron has ordered.

Previously secret documents released by the Government have shown that a SAS officer was drafted in to help the Indian authorities with plans to remove dissident Sikhs from the Golden Temple at Amritsar, Sikhism's holiest shrine.

The plan was ordered with the full knowledge of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the documents say. Hundreds of Sikhs were killed in the attack.

Yesterday Sikh leaders said the revelations amounted to the British Government ‘backstabbing” and have called for all documentation surrounding the attack to be released.

In an operation called “Blue Star” Indian troops attacked the temple in June 1984 with an official death toll of 492 militants, pilgrims and soldiers. The country was plunged into some of the worst communal violence in its history following the attack. Sikh activists claim thousands died in the operation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/10571223/Britain-backstabbed-Sikhs-by-advising-India-on-1984-Golden-Temple-raid.html

Not content with practically handing the Falkland Islands to Argentina on a plate a couple of years earlier costing hundreds of British lives to win them back she was colluding with India over the atrocity that took place at the Golden Temple at Amritsar in 1984.
Christ that was kept quiet but it's leaked out now of this country's involvement in something that cost hundreds if not thousands of lives in another country.

Absolutely shameful

Oh give over Irn this is pathetic, she won back the Falklands, which is no way as bad as an idiot who took us into a conflict where there was no weapons of mass destruction, in other words lied to the nation, allowed systematic torture to go on and created no doubt countless terrorists due to them believing extremists who claimed we are at war with Islam, yes nothing better than under Labours watch, of which has created not only countless bloodshed but years of resentment.

So all this is  about is one SAS officer who we have no idea gave the go ahead to kill anyone or that his ideas were even used.

Sorry all you have here is we assisted the Indian Government and approved by Mrs Ghandi, that is all that is clear, we have no idea if they followed through with his plan or that the plan went wrong in anyway to how he advised it.

Utterly pathetic attempt to bash Maggie over this

This is a legitimate news story covered by a wide section of the press and it was even brought up in parliament today so I make np apologies for bringing it here.
We had no business getting involved in what went on in helping the Indian government who had been exposed for carrying out many human rights abuses of the Sikh population in Punjab and although she is not with us anymore questions need to be asked and answered on why she was approving advice to be given on an issue that brought about the death of hundreds if not thousands of people. It would surely have been more appropriate to perhaps have offered up diplomats from the Foreign Office to try and facilitate a diplomatic solution rather than a military one.
And there are many issues on which Thatcher did not chose well including support for the South African government and its apartheid policies and the botched up situation when we as good as offered up the Falkland Islands on a plate to Argentina only to have to get them back by force with the loss of hundreds of British troops.

PhilDidge wrote:

nicko wrote:don't forget didge, Maggie was responsible for all the ill's that plague Britain,she was also responsible for the miners strike,and even responsible for the indian attack on the temple,so certain people believe. in fact, she was the best prime minister we ever had,bar Churchill!

Not only that Nicko she was also adored by many Americans also, sadly some people always try to bring down great people.

How she is blamed for this event when all we have is one letter stating an officer is to assist in planning with no other details is a joke beyond belief!  

Well if she was that good why did her own party stab her in the back and her bring her down?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Not only that Nicko she was also adored by many Americans also, sadly some people always try to bring down great people.

How she is blamed for this event when all we have is one letter stating an officer is to assist in planning with no other details is a joke beyond belief!  

Well if she was that good why did her own party stab her in the back and her bring her down?

They don't like talking about that bit!  ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Catman wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Well if she was that good why did her own party stab her in the back and her bring her down?

They don't like talking about that bit!  ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Certainly startles the herd into a bit of a stampede right enough Phil. I can hear the hoofs the thundering on the ground from here.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Not only that Nicko she was also adored by many Americans also, sadly some people always try to bring down great people.

How she is blamed for this event when all we have is one letter stating an officer is to assist in planning with no other details is a joke beyond belief!  

Well if she was that good why did her own party stab her in the back and her bring her down?

Some people are at the end of the day selfish are they not and want their own way, what does that prove?

Bugger all really, I am saying that has never happened within the Labour party?

How anyone can try and make out this is anything but shameful is beyond me. The sikhs fought for us during the war and to think we sent out an SAS officer to advise of how they could be dragged out of the Temple and massacred, and some are trying to say it's nothing much!

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Oh give over Irn this is pathetic, she won back the Falklands, which is no way as bad as an idiot who took us into a conflict where there was no weapons of mass destruction, in other words lied to the nation, allowed systematic torture to go on and created no doubt countless terrorists due to them believing extremists who claimed we are at war with Islam, yes nothing better than under Labours watch, of which has created not only countless bloodshed but years of resentment.

So all this is  about is one SAS officer who we have no idea gave the go ahead to kill anyone or that his ideas were even used.

Sorry all you have here is we assisted the Indian Government and approved by Mrs Ghandi, that is all that is clear, we have no idea if they followed through with his plan or that the plan went wrong in anyway to how he advised it.

Utterly pathetic attempt to bash Maggie over this

This is a legitimate news story covered by a wide section of the press and it was even brought up in parliament today so I make np apologies for bringing it here.
We had no business getting involved in what went on in helping the Indian government who had been exposed for carrying out many human rights abuses of the Sikh population in Punjab and although she is not with us anymore questions need to be asked and answered on why she was approving advice to be given on an issue that brought about the death of hundreds if not thousands of people. It would surely have been more appropriate to perhaps have offered up diplomats from the Foreign Office to try and facilitate a diplomatic solution rather than a military one.
And there are many issues on which Thatcher did not chose well including support for the South African government and its apartheid policies and the botched up situation when we as good as offered up the Falkland Islands on a plate to Argentina only to have to get them back by force with the loss of hundreds of British troops.

Yes it has been covered and proven what exactly?
We have no business getting involved in many things, there will be things you will no doubt hear about 20 years from today when Labour was in office, that is naive to think nothing goes on. She did somethings wrong, that will never take way the fact she was a great leader, look at Churchill he nearly destroyed his career with the Gallipoli campaign, he still went onto lead this nation in its darkest hour.
The point is you have no idea or clue as to what really this help constituted or how it was meant to be played out. We only have a correspondence saying she gave help in the affect of an SAS officer, who in fact are never full time SAS operatives but normal officers serving a 3 year stint. It is all well an good saying what to do in hindsight after such an event but when you have little details to go on, your outrage is based more on your dislike of Maggie than seeing this for what it really is.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Well if she was that good why did her own party stab her in the back and her bring her down?

Some people are at the end of the day selfish are they not and want their own way, what does that prove?

Bugger all really, I am saying that has never happened within the Labour party?

I can't think of a Labour prime minister that was ever voted out of office by his own party.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Some people are at the end of the day selfish are they not and want their own way, what does that prove?

Bugger all really, I am saying that has never happened within the Labour party?

I can't think of a Labour prime minister that was ever voted out of office by his own party.

Who said voted out?

I am saying being stabbed in the back which was your point remember?

She was voted out by her own party.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

This is a legitimate news story covered by a wide section of the press and it was even brought up in parliament today so I make np apologies for bringing it here.
We had no business getting involved in what went on in helping the Indian government who had been exposed for carrying out many human rights abuses of the Sikh population in Punjab and although she is not with us anymore questions need to be asked and answered on why she was approving advice to be given on an issue that brought about the death of hundreds if not thousands of people. It would surely have been more appropriate to perhaps have offered up diplomats from the Foreign Office to try and facilitate a diplomatic solution rather than a military one.
And there are many issues on which Thatcher did not chose well including support for the South African government and its apartheid policies and the botched up situation when we as good as offered up the Falkland Islands on a plate to Argentina only to have to get them back by force with the loss of hundreds of British troops.

Yes it has been covered and proven what exactly?
We have no business getting involved in many things, there will be things you will no doubt hear about 20 years from today when Labour was in office, that is naive to think nothing goes on. She did somethings wrong, that will never take way the fact she was a great leader, look at Churchill he nearly destroyed his career with the Gallipoli campaign, he still went onto lead this nation in its darkest hour.
The point is you have no idea or clue as to what really this help constituted or how it was meant to be played out. We only have a correspondence saying she gave help in the affect of an SAS officer, who in fact are never full time SAS operatives but normal officers serving a 3 year stint. It is all well an good saying what to do in hindsight after such an event but when you have little details to go on, your outrage is based more on your dislike of Maggie than seeing this for what it really is.

That is rubbish Didge and Thatcher would have been well briefed on the situation in the Punjab and what had been going on.
You will see that I said that offering up diplomats from the Foreign Office to try and facilitate a solution would have been the better response rather than offering up military advice.

Sassy wrote:She was voted out by her own party.

Correct

Irn Bru wrote:

Sassy wrote:She was voted out by her own party.

Correct

Didn't she put her name forward for the second ballot, then they all turned around and told her not to?

Shameful!....But that's the whole nature of conservatism!

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Yes it has been covered and proven what exactly?
We have no business getting involved in many things, there will be things you will no doubt hear about 20 years from today when Labour was in office, that is naive to think nothing goes on. She did somethings wrong, that will never take way the fact she was a great leader, look at Churchill he nearly destroyed his career with the Gallipoli campaign, he still went onto lead this nation in its darkest hour.
The point is you have no idea or clue as to what really this help constituted or how it was meant to be played out. We only have a correspondence saying she gave help in the affect of an SAS officer, who in fact are never full time SAS operatives but normal officers serving a 3 year stint. It is all well an good saying what to do in hindsight after such an event but when you have little details to go on, your outrage is based more on your dislike of Maggie than seeing this for what it really is.

That is rubbish Didge and Thatcher would have been well briefed on the situation in the Punjab and what had been going on.
You will see that I said that offering up diplomats from the Foreign Office to try and facilitate a solution would have been the better response rather than offering up military advice.

I suggest you read it again,

Britain's Special Air Service (SAS) officials had been dispatched to help India on the planning on the raid of the Golden Temple to flush out militants #


This says quite clearly advises, it does not say they adapted the policy or advice of them does it?

Does it?

No

You are only getting your knickers in a twist because of your hate for one of the best leaders we have ever had.

All she did was send people to advise

The horror, not

So no Labour Politician has ever been stabbed in the back then, simple question, nobody wants to answer?

The Indian Authorities sought British advise to REMOVE the Sikhs from the Temple.   The SAS man drew up a plan, the Indian Authority may PUT THE PLAN into action.   Which they did.   I suggest you read it again! The result was a massacre.

PhilDidge wrote:So no Labour Politician has ever been stabbed in the back then, simple question, nobody wants to answer?

Didn't she stab Heath in the back though?...So i suppose she got her just deserts in the end!   

Sassy wrote:The Indian Authorities sought British advise to REMOVE the Sikhs from the Temple.   The SAS man drew up a plan, the Indian Authority may PUT THE PLAN into action.   Which they did.   I suggest you read it again!  The result was a massacre.

Read the word

Thanks you helped prove my point again

Bravo!

Catman wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Correct

Didn't she put her name forward for the second ballot, then they all turned around and told her not to?

Shameful!....But that's the whole nature of conservatism!

What was said outside the British Embassy on that fateful night for Mrs Thatcher...

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108251

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:The Indian Authorities sought British advise to REMOVE the Sikhs from the Temple.   The SAS man drew up a plan, the Indian Authority may PUT THE PLAN into action.   Which they did.   I suggest you read it again!  The result was a massacre.

Read the word

Thanks you helped prove my point again

Bravo!

It said MAY because it hadn't taken place. It then took place. Only point you have proved it that you couldn't put it in time sequence and context.

Irn Bru wrote:

Catman wrote:

Didn't she put her name forward for the second ballot, then they all turned around and told her not to?

Shameful!....But that's the whole nature of conservatism!

What was said outside the British Embassy on that fateful night for Mrs Thatcher...

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108251

   I remember it well!

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Read the word

Thanks you helped prove my point again

Bravo!

It said MAY because it hadn't taken place.   It then took place.   Only point you have proved it that you couldn't put it in time sequence and context.

May means they might or might not, simple as that!

The reality is neeither you or Irn can show me either if the event went to plan as instructed by the SAS even if we are to believe they made the plan?

Seriously you are both arguing a moot point.

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:The Indian Authorities sought British advise to REMOVE the Sikhs from the Temple.   The SAS man drew up a plan, the Indian Authority may PUT THE PLAN into action.   Which they did.   I suggest you read it again!  The result was a massacre.

Read the word

Thanks you helped prove my point again

Bravo!

It wouldn't have mattered whether they used the plan or not. That's just a side issue from the revelations that she approved military advice to be given to the Indian authorities in their campaign against the Sikh's.

Making excuses for her just doesn't help.

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:

It said MAY because it hadn't taken place.   It then took place.   Only point you have proved it that you couldn't put it in time sequence and context.

May means they might or might not, simple as that!

The reality is neeither you or Irn can show me either if the event went to plan as instructed by the SAS even if we are to believe they made the plan?

Seriously you are both arguing a moot point.

May means it might not, because at the time they didn't know if the Indian Authorities would follow it through. Then they did.

Catman wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

What was said outside the British Embassy on that fateful night for Mrs Thatcher...

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108251

   I remember it well!

A classic piece of broadcasting from the BBC.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Read the word

Thanks you helped prove my point again

Bravo!

It wouldn't have mattered whether they used the plan or not. That's just a side issue from the revelations that she approved military advice to be given to the Indian authorities in their campaign against the Sikh's.

Making excuses for her just doesn't help.

It is the point and you also know it is hence why your views are continually side tracking from the point!

Who commanded the action by the way?

Seems funny the one person who did has not been mentioned at all, shows rather well how some are using the event to have a go at Maggie, the desperation of the left, not one of you has condemned the actual person who ordered it, Mrs Ghandi.

Point easily proven

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


May means they might or might not, simple as that!

The reality is neeither you or Irn can show me either if the event went to plan as instructed by the SAS even if we are to believe they made the plan?

Seriously you are both arguing a moot point.

May means it might not, because at the time they didn't know if the Indian Authorities would follow it through.   Then they did.  

He's arguing on an irrelevant point anyway - it's the approval of using the British military to the Indian authorities that is the issue in hand.

Just a diversion and excuses really.

So were we wrong to be in Oman?
Aden?
South America advising on fighting drug lords?

Were things wrong too Irn

Sorry your argument ha reached levels of mockery now to say the least, this is just some poor excuse to directly blame Maggie

Pathetic

We have no need to condemn Mrs Ghandi, what she did was despicable, but we were not governed by her, we were governed by Thatcher, who instead of telling Mrs Ghandi that she would have not involved with it, except diplomatically, she sent someone to help plan what became a massacre. If you would rather defend her just because she was a conservative, that's up to your conscience. I'll condemn her for that, and for making Argentina think we were happy to give the Fauklands away, which resulted in a war and loss of life, and I condemn Tony Blair for the horrors of Iraq.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

It wouldn't have mattered whether they used the plan or not. That's just a side issue from the revelations that she approved military advice to be given to the Indian authorities in their campaign against the Sikh's.

Making excuses for her just doesn't help.

It is the point and you also know it is hence why your views are continually side tracking from the point!

Who commanded the action by the way?

Seems funny the one person who did has not been mentioned at all, shows rather well how some are using the event to have a go at Maggie, the desperation of the left, not one of you has condemned the actual person who ordered it, Mrs Ghandi.

Point easily proven

So you condemn the action then? Well that sums it up in that Thatcher was complicit in colluding with her in the first place by authorising the use of the British military to go to India to assist with the operation.

Sorry, Didge. You walked into that one.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


It is the point and you also know it is hence why your views are continually side tracking from the point!

Who commanded the action by the way?

Seems funny the one person who did has not been mentioned at all, shows rather well how some are using the event to have a go at Maggie, the desperation of the left, not one of you has condemned the actual person who ordered it, Mrs Ghandi.

Point easily proven

So you condemn the action then? Well that sums it up in that Thatcher was complicit in colluding with her in the first place by authorising the use of the British military to go to India to assist with the operation.

Sorry, Didge. You walked into that one.

I am not condemning Maggi at all, as I never walked into anything, because Maggi has not been shown to know of even the plan itself once given, or if the plan went ahead as was advised. You are talking the position that it was or the fact the plan could have gone wrong of which they can do or would you like examples of this. Thus now because we offer advice and that advice is not taken the person giving the advice is to blame, really?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

I said you were being desperate but it is now comical your responses and you are losing credibility fast dear Irn

Indira Ghandi was put in a terrible position and she paid the price for it with her life. Her own bodyguards who were Sikhs turned against her and shot her.

A lot of the 'blame' lies with her but Maggie should not have got involved. Simple.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:
So you condemn the action then? Well that sums it up in that Thatcher was complicit in colluding with her in the first place by authorising the use of the British military to go to India to assist with the operation.

Sorry, Didge. You walked into that one.

I am not condemning Maggi at all, as I never walked into anything, because Maggi has not been shown to know of even the plan itself once given, or if the plan went ahead as was advised. You are talking the position that it was or the fact the plan could have gone wrong of which they can do or would you like examples of this. Thus now because we offer advice and that advice is not taken the person giving the advice is to blame, really?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

I said you were being desperate but it is now comical your responses and you are losing credibility fast dear Irn

So you missed 'WITH THE PRIME MINISTER'S AGREEMENT'

SEXY MAMA wrote:Indira Ghandi was put in a terrible position and she paid the price for it with her life. Her own bodyguards who were Sikhs turned against her and shot her.

A lot of the 'blame' lies with her but Maggie should not have got involved. Simple.

Well said Sexy, people forget there was actual conflict going on here and she ended up being murdered herself, thus again examples of wrong being done by both groups

Nations will always try to assist in problems, what we know here is the fact very little, we have no idea if the Officer advised against attacking?

Who knows

Anyway night

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I am not condemning Maggi at all, as I never walked into anything, because Maggi has not been shown to know of even the plan itself once given, or if the plan went ahead as was advised. You are talking the position that it was or the fact the plan could have gone wrong of which they can do or would you like examples of this. Thus now because we offer advice and that advice is not taken the person giving the advice is to blame, really?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

I said you were being desperate but it is now comical your responses and you are losing credibility fast dear Irn

So you missed 'WITH THE PRIME MINISTER'S AGREEMENT'

I missed nothing dear Sassy


Night, nothing worse than commies using the death of people though something to bash another when we know of no real involvement or the full facts of the situations, typical commie idiots, using the death of people to make a political point

Utterly pathetic

PhilDidge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:Indira Ghandi was put in a terrible position and she paid the price for it with her life. Her own bodyguards who were Sikhs turned against her and shot her.

A lot of the 'blame' lies with her but Maggie should not have got involved. Simple.

Well said Sexy, people forget there was actual conflict going on here and she ended up being murdered herself, thus again examples of wrong being done by both groups

Nations will always try to assist in problems, what we know here is the fact very little, we have no idea if the Officer advised against attacking?

Who knows

Anyway night

Im off too just came on for a little while Good night x

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:


So you missed 'WITH THE PRIME MINISTER'S AGREEMENT'

I missed nothing dear Sassy


Night, nothing worse than commies using the death of people though something to bash another when we know of no real involvement or the full facts of the situations, typical commie idiots, using the death of people to make a political point

Utterly pathetic

In the letter, the SAS officer drew up a plan to remove them that was approved by Mrs Ghandi.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:
So you condemn the action then? Well that sums it up in that Thatcher was complicit in colluding with her in the first place by authorising the use of the British military to go to India to assist with the operation.

Sorry, Didge. You walked into that one.

I am not condemning Maggi at all, as I never walked into anything, because Maggi has not been shown to know of even the plan itself once given, or if the plan went ahead as was advised. You are talking the position that it was or the fact the plan could have gone wrong of which they can do or would you like examples of this. Thus now because we offer advice and that advice is not taken the person giving the advice is to blame, really?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

I said you were being desperate but it is now comical your responses and you are losing credibility fast dear Irn

Didge, I'll make this as simple as possible.

Do you approve of Mrs Thatcher sending the British military to India to give advice to the Indian authorities on how to bring about a military solution in their military campaign against the Sikh population?

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I missed nothing dear Sassy


Night, nothing worse than commies using the death of people though something to bash another when we know of no real involvement or the full facts of the situations, typical commie idiots, using the death of people to make a political point

Utterly pathetic

In the letter, the SAS officer drew up a plan to remove them that was approved by Mrs Ghandi.

You have the cheek to moan about my grammar, read slowly


"The foreign secretary decided to respond favourably to the Indian request and, with the Prime Minister's agreement, an SAD (sic) officer has visited India and drawn up a plan which has been approved by Mrs Gandhi. The foreign secretary believes that the Indian government may put the plan into operation shortly."

The plan was a approved, which does not mean it was approved to be actually used, as in the next breath it states?

The foreign secretary believes that the Indian government may put the plan into operation shortly."



Do I approve Irn to send any help to Governments when they request help dealing with extremists?

Yes, as help can also help prevent loss of life

Now I know you are trying once again to try and make some idiotic connection that I approve of the massacre just will not stand any legitimacy and if that is your attempt then again your belief is absurd here, as given the chance would I have backed the SAS and SBS to go into Sierre Leone and free people on Operation Barras?
Yes I would, sometimes and that was a great success, sometimes a military operation can fail or go wrong, that you cannot predict, especially when the men you have planned the operation have not been trained by you or you even understand any emotions they may have whilst being part of such an event! Which would be the case here, even if they did use their plan or not. You though only look at something in hindsight, in other words cowardly make such distinctions after an event and would have no doubt no balls to make decisions totry and help a situation.

I think you have just about avoided many points of mine here going off on tangent about RW and LW bollocks as per usual and trying to use the tragic event that happened to poorly blame someone so great you embarrass yourself with your pathetic attempts to try and knock her.
Sorry many will remember her as being great I doubt you will have the same luxery.

Night

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:

In the letter, the SAS officer drew up a plan to remove them that was approved by Mrs Ghandi.

You have the cheek to moan about my grammar, read slowly


"The foreign secretary decided to respond favourably to the Indian request and, with the Prime Minister's agreement, an SAD (sic) officer has visited India and drawn up a plan which has been approved by Mrs Gandhi. The foreign secretary believes that the Indian government may put the plan into operation shortly."

The plan was a approved, which does not mean it was approved to be actually used, as in the next breath it states?

The foreign secretary believes that the Indian government may put the plan into operation shortly."



Do I approve Irn to send any help to Governments when they request help dealing with extremists?

Yes, as help can also help prevent loss of life

Now I know you are trying once again to try and make some idiotic connection that I approve of the massacre just will not stand any legitimacy and if that is your attempt then again your belief is absurd here, as given the chance would I have backed the SAS and SBS to go into Sierre Leone and free people on Operation Barras?
Yes I would, sometimes and that was a great success, sometimes a military operation can fail or go wrong, that you cannot predict, especially when the men you have planned the operation have not been trained by you or you even understand any emotions they may have whilst being part of such an event! Which would be the case here, even if they did use their plan or not. You though only look at something in hindsight, in other words cowardly make such distinctions after an event and would have no doubt no balls to make decisions totry and help a situation.

I think you have just about avoided many points of mine here going off on tangent about RW and LW bollocks as per usual and trying to use the tragic event that happened to poorly blame someone so great you embarrass yourself with your pathetic attempts to try and knock her.
Sorry many will remember her as being great I doubt you will have the same luxery.

Night

What I've highlighted above is all I need to know Didge because that's what I suspected all along in that you are defending Thatcher because you approve of the actions taken by the Indian authorities. Why didn't you just say so in the first place instead of all the bluff and bluster about the plan may not have been used?
The Sikh population in the Punjab suffered terrible human rights abuses and denial of their rights by the Indian authorities but when they stand up and fight back you call them extremists.
Instead of sending military officers to India she should have agreed to send a diplomatic mission to try and facilitate a peaceful conclusion to the stand off. Britain had great influence in India and had many experienced diplomats and skilled negotiators to hand and that would have been the sensible thing to do.
I'm sure you don't condone the killing of the thousands that died in what happened and in the aftermath because I know you are not like that but it was wrong and a mistake by Thatcher to assist the Indian authorities in seeking to end the stand off with a military solution because they always end up in a bloodbath and in that case that is exactly what happened.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


You have the cheek to moan about my grammar, read slowly


"The foreign secretary decided to respond favourably to the Indian request and, with the Prime Minister's agreement, an SAD (sic) officer has visited India and drawn up a plan which has been approved by Mrs Gandhi. The foreign secretary believes that the Indian government may put the plan into operation shortly."

The plan was a approved, which does not mean it was approved to be actually used, as in the next breath it states?

The foreign secretary believes that the Indian government may put the plan into operation shortly."



Do I approve Irn to send any help to Governments when they request help dealing with extremists?

Yes, as help can also help prevent loss of life

Now I know you are trying once again to try and make some idiotic connection that I approve of the massacre just will not stand any legitimacy and if that is your attempt then again your belief is absurd here, as given the chance would I have backed the SAS and SBS to go into Sierre Leone and free people on Operation Barras?
Yes I would, sometimes and that was a great success, sometimes a military operation can fail or go wrong, that you cannot predict, especially when the men you have planned the operation have not been trained by you or you even understand any emotions they may have whilst being part of such an event! Which would be the case here, even if they did use their plan or not. You though only look at something in hindsight, in other words cowardly make such distinctions after an event and would have no doubt no balls to make decisions totry and help a situation.

I think you have just about avoided many points of mine here going off on tangent about RW and LW bollocks as per usual and trying to use the tragic event that happened to poorly blame someone so great you embarrass yourself with your pathetic attempts to try and knock her.
Sorry many will remember her as being great I doubt you will have the same luxery.

Night

What I've highlighted above is all I need to know Didge because that's what I suspected all along in that you are defending Thatcher because you approve of the actions taken by the Indian authorities. Why didn't you just say so in the first place instead of all the bluff and bluster about the plan may not have been used?
The Sikh population in the Punjab suffered terrible human rights abuses and denial of their rights by the Indian authorities but when they stand up and fight back you call them extremists.
Instead of sending military officers to India she should have agreed to send a diplomatic mission to try and facilitate a peaceful conclusion to the stand off. Britain had great influence in India and had many experienced diplomats and skilled negotiators to hand and that would have been the sensible thing to do.
I'm sure you don't condone the killing of the thousands that died in what happened and in the aftermath because I know you are not like that but it was wrong and a mistake by Thatcher to assist the Indian authorities in seeking to end the stand off with a military solution because they always end up in a bloodbath and in that case that is exactly what happened.

No it was not wrong for what Thatcher did in helping a country that seek assistance, blaming you make me laugh again how you look back again at an incident in hindsight as that is all you commies do, you are nothing more than cowards trying to seek to blame here for nothing you can actually prove, that is the pathetic resolve of a commie like yourself, because the reality is you hate her. You seek to use the deaths of people who we have again no idea she was involved in anyway the killing of these people, and you try to make political gain out of that, how pathetic. You even have no understanding of the situation at the time. Now it was Ghandi that brought about a peaceful solution to India, but with Bhindranwale he wanted to advocate violence, now are you telling me you support violence now? Really? I have never supported the violence committed by the ANC in SA, I condemn it but now it seems you think violence is the only option. I stated what made Mandela great was reconciliation, so it is you advocating violence from the Sikhs, no suprise there really.

So lets look at the situation at the time shall we my child? The Indian authorities were facing untold violence in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi, of which  Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was accused of amassing weapons in the Sikh temple and starting a major armed uprising. Now maybe your idea of a protest is to be sucking on some hippy girls nipple at an american airbase protesting, but it also seems you think the indian authorities were meant to do nothing about the continuing violence. Now I am not denying Sikhs were not denied rights, but no violence is every right either and you stupidly think nothing should be done about the violence, thank goodness you were not in charge in 1939 we would no doubt all be speaking German today.


So lets read what happened that day, because what happened was a culmination of events that led to some innocents dying of which Bhindranwale and his followers have to take some responsibility to:


The government seemed unable to stop the violence in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. Indira Gandhi ordered the army to storm the temple complex in Punjab.Operation Blue Star was a mixed success. A variety of army units along with paramilitary forces surrounded the temple complex on 3 June 1984. The army kept asking the militants to surrender, using the public address system, but according to civilians inside the complex no announcements were made and the Army termed everyone inside the complex as enemies. The militants were asked to send the pilgrims out of the temple premises to safety, before they start fighting the army. However, nothing happened till 7 PM. General Brar then asked the police if they could send emissaries inside to help get the civilians out, but the police said that anyone sent inside would be killed by the militants. They believed that the militants were keeping the pilgrims inside to stop the army from entering the temple. Finally, around a hundred sick and old people were let out. These people informed the army that the others were not being allowed to come out. The army had grossly underestimated the firepower possessed by the militants. Thus, tanks and heavy artillery were used to forcefully suppress the anti-tank and machine-gun fire. After a 24 hour firefight, the army finally wrested control of the temple complex. According to the Indian Army, 136 army personnel were killed and 249 injured. while insurgent casualties were 493 killed and 86 injured. Unofficial figures go well into the thousands. Along with insurgents, many innocent worshipers were caught in the crossfire. The estimates of innocent people killed in the operation range from a few hundred of people.


So as we see the event was a culminations of mistakes by both the army and insurgents which led to civilians deaths, so take your fake bullshit of care about the deaths here Irn because I am not buying any of this, you are using an event you know nothing about as stated to use the death of people to make political gain, how utterly pathetic. Even here it is clear even with the SAS officer they had very little intelligence of the situation from the indians to provide them with as seen they underestimated the firepower possessed by the militants. So here we have insurgents going around committing violence and you think people should dance around with flowers in their hair to stop extremists killing innocent people. I again think it was wrong what was happening to the Sikhs, I do not though support their use of violence. Try reading some real history, not the left wing crap you read all the time thanks

 :/pwn://:

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

What I've highlighted above is all I need to know Didge because that's what I suspected all along in that you are defending Thatcher because you approve of the actions taken by the Indian authorities. Why didn't you just say so in the first place instead of all the bluff and bluster about the plan may not have been used?
The Sikh population in the Punjab suffered terrible human rights abuses and denial of their rights by the Indian authorities but when they stand up and fight back you call them extremists.
Instead of sending military officers to India she should have agreed to send a diplomatic mission to try and facilitate a peaceful conclusion to the stand off. Britain had great influence in India and had many experienced diplomats and skilled negotiators to hand and that would have been the sensible thing to do.
I'm sure you don't condone the killing of the thousands that died in what happened and in the aftermath because I know you are not like that but it was wrong and a mistake by Thatcher to assist the Indian authorities in seeking to end the stand off with a military solution because they always end up in a bloodbath and in that case that is exactly what happened.

No it was not wrong for what Thatcher did in helping a country that seek assistance, blaming you make me laugh again how you look back again at an incident in hindsight as that is all you commies do, you are nothing more than cowards trying to seek to blame here for nothing you can actually prove, that is the pathetic resolve of a commie like yourself, because the reality is you hate her. You seek to use the deaths of people who we have again no idea she was involved in anyway the killing of these people, and you try to make political gain out of that, how pathetic. You even have no understanding of the situation at the time. Now it was Ghandi that brought about a peaceful solution to India, but with Bhindranwale he wanted to advocate violence, now are you telling me you support violence now? Really? I have never supported the violence committed by the ANC in SA, I condemn it but now it seems you think violence is the only option. I stated what made Mandela great was reconciliation, so it is you advocating violence from the Sikhs, no suprise there really.

So lets look at the situation at the time shall we my child? The Indian authorities were facing untold violence in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi, of which  Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was accused of amassing weapons in the Sikh temple and starting a major armed uprising. Now maybe your idea of a protest is to be sucking on some hippy girls nipple at an american airbase protesting, but it also seems you think the indian authorities were meant to do nothing about the continuing violence. Now I am not denying Sikhs were not denied rights, but no violence is every right either and you stupidly think nothing should be done about the violence, thank goodness you were not in charge in 1939 we would no doubt all be speaking German today.


So lets read what happened that day, because what happened was a culmination of events that led to some innocents dying of which Bhindranwale and his followers have to take some responsibility to:


The government seemed unable to stop the violence in Punjab, Haryana, and Delhi. Indira Gandhi ordered the army to storm the temple complex in Punjab.Operation Blue Star was a mixed success. A variety of army units along with paramilitary forces surrounded the temple complex on 3 June 1984. The army kept asking the militants to surrender, using the public address system, but according to civilians inside the complex no announcements were made and the Army termed everyone inside the complex as enemies. The militants were asked to send the pilgrims out of the temple premises to safety, before they start fighting the army. However, nothing happened till 7 PM. General Brar then asked the police if they could send emissaries inside to help get the civilians out, but the police said that anyone sent inside would be killed by the militants. They believed that the militants were keeping the pilgrims inside to stop the army from entering the temple. Finally, around a hundred sick and old people were let out. These people informed the army that the others were not being allowed to come out. The army had grossly underestimated the firepower possessed by the militants. Thus, tanks and heavy artillery were used to forcefully suppress the anti-tank and machine-gun fire. After a 24 hour firefight, the army finally wrested control of the temple complex. According to the Indian Army, 136 army personnel were killed and 249 injured. while insurgent casualties were 493 killed and 86 injured. Unofficial figures go well into the thousands. Along with insurgents, many innocent worshipers were caught in the crossfire. The estimates of innocent people killed in the operation range from a few hundred of people.


So as we see the event was a culminations of mistakes by both the army and insurgents which led to civilians deaths, so take your fake bullshit of care about the deaths here Irn because I am not buying any of this, you are using an event you know nothing about as stated to use the death of people to make political gain, how utterly pathetic. Even here it is clear even with the SAS officer they had very little intelligence of the situation from the indians to provide them with as seen they underestimated the firepower possessed by the militants. So here we have insurgents going around committing violence and you think people should dance around with flowers in their hair to stop extremists killing innocent people. I again think it was wrong what was happening to the Sikhs, I do not though support their use of violence. Try reading some real history, not the left wing crap you read all the time thanks

 :/pwn://:

Good Grief!!! What in heaven’s name is that all about? I was actually being quite respectful of your position in stating that I knew you were not one to condone the mass killing of people. Sadly, it appears  I was mistaken because all I have got back from you is a load of rubbish, misrepresentations, petty name calling, and the usual drama about people being commies and everything else that fits in with the rabid ramblings of a right winger going berserk. I obviously hit a serious nerve there because what you have done is just let your true feelings come to the fore showing that by choosing instead to go for the military solution instead of seeking a diplomatic solution you are no facilitator for peace and reconciliation.

You have shown you are just as gung-ho as Thatcher was in making the decision she did instead of using British influence to try and bring about a peaceful conclusion. She ignored the warnings that it could result in a bloodbath and also enrage the large Sikh community here in the UK. Just as gung-ho as Netanyahu and all the others that use guns to run roughshod over the rights of oppressed minorities.

You are no defender of any of the values you claim to posses and it is clear now that you just argue on these for the sake of arguing but all the time beneath that false image that you project about yourself of standing up against oppression lurks a fraud who is prone to resorting to racially aggravated language and reaching for the military solution over and above peace and reconciliation.

Instead of taking the easy option by lifting something that looks like it came straight off Wiki go and do some additional research and look into the history of the Sikh’s and you will find that more than any other sector of the Indian community they contributed an enormous amount to the British war effort with around 200,000 thousand freely giving up their lives or being wounded in action in defence of this country and freedom for the world at large from oppression. Only then will you understand why the Sikh community feel they have been stabbed in the back by the decision that Thatcher took. No wonder it was classified top-secret.