lunes, 13 de febrero de 2012

La profesora de geografía británica que cuestionó a Thatcher haber hundido el Crucero Gral.Belgrano.

Con cuestionamientos que no hacen pensar que Diana Gould fuera proargentina, una ciudadana británica cuestiona la decisión tomada por Margaret Thatcher, una representante del COLONIALISMO BRITÁNICO.
La puso al borde del ataque de nervios, al punto de que la "dama de hierro" debió "recordarle" varias veces que tenía todo el poder para hacerlo. Más que dama de hierro la Thatcher tiene CARA DE HIERRO.
Diana Gould era una profesora de geografía nacida en 1926, que falleció el 3 de diciembe pasado. Gould logró enojar a Thatcher (ver video más abajo) al punto de que en un momento olvida el nombre de la profesora que le hace las preguntas. Es más, al retirarse el marido de Thatcher del estudio de televisión, tildó a la BBC de "rojillos" (¡¿comunistas!)... paupérrima defensa para sustentar aquella terrible decisión. Con esas palabras el marido de la exprimer ministra buscó desprestigiarlos por haber sido el medio que logró poner en evidencia la flaqueza de los argumentos de Thatcher: el hundimiento del Belgrano fue un ACTO DE VENGANZA  y un MECANISMO PARA SABOTEAR CUALQUIER INTENTO DE SOLUCIÓN PACÍFICA. El crucero se encontraba fuera del área de exclusión cuando dio la órden de hundirlo (ver mapa). En sus respuestas Thatcher no afirma que el crucero se encontraba dentro del área de exclusión sino "en un área donde representaba un peligro para nuestros barcos y para nuestra gente" y afirma encontrarse muy orgullosa de haber dado la orden de hundir al crucero.


 el diálogo:

  • Gould: Mrs Thatcher, why, when the Belgrano, the Argentinian battleship, [the Belgrano was in fact a cruiser] was outside the exclusion zone and actually sailing away from the Falklands, why did you give the orders to sink it?
    Thatcher: But it was not sailing away from the Falklands — It was in an area which was a danger to our ships, and to our people on them.
    Lawley: Outside the exclusion zone, though.
    Thatcher: It was in an area which we had warned, at the end of April, we had given warnings that all ships in those areas, if they represented a danger to our ships, were vulnerable. When it was sunk, that ship which we had found, was a danger to our ships. My duty was to look after our troops, our ships, our Navy, and my goodness me, I live with many, many anxious days and nights.
    Gould: But Mrs Thatcher, you started your answer by saying it was not sailing away from the Falklands. It was on a bearing of 280 and it was already west of the Falklands, so I'm sorry, but I cannot see how you can say it was not sailing away from the Falklands.
    Thatcher: When it was sunk ..
    Gould: When it was sunk.
    Thatcher: .. it was a danger to our ships.
    Gould: No, but you have just said at the beginning of your answer that it was not sailing away from the Falklands, and I am asking you to correct that statement.
    Thatcher: But it's within an area outside the exclusion zone, which I think is what you are saying is sailing away ..
    Gould: No, I am not, Mrs Thatcher.
    Sue Lawley: I think we are not arguing about which way it was facing at the time.
    Gould: Mrs Thatcher, I am saying that it was on a bearing 280, which is a bearing just North of West. It was already west of the Falklands, and therefore nobody with any imagination can put it sailing other than away from the Falklands.
    Thatcher: Mrs - I'm sorry, I forgot your name.
    Lawley: Mrs Gould.
    Thatcher: Mrs Gould, when the orders were given to sink it, when it was sunk, it was in an area which was a danger to our ships. Now, you accept that, do you?
    Gould: No, I don't.
    Thatcher: I am sorry, it was. You must accept ..
    Gould: No, Mrs Thatcher.
    Thatcher: .. that when we gave the order, when we changed the rules which enabled them to sink the Belgrano, the change of rules had been notified at the end of April. It was all published, that any ships that were are a danger to ours within a certain zone wider than the Falklands were likely to be sunk, and again, I do say to you, my duty, and I am very proud that we put it this way and adhered to it, was to protect the lives of the people in our ships, and the enormous numbers of troops that we had down there waiting for landings. I put that duty first. When the Belgrano was sunk, when the Belgrano was sunk, and I ask you to accept this, she was in a position which was a danger to our Navy.
    Lawley: Let me ask you this, Mrs Gould. What motive are you seeking to attach to Mrs Thatcher and her government in this? Is it inefficiency, lack of communication, or is it a desire for action, a desire for war?
    Gould: It is a desire for action, and a lack of communications because, on giving those orders to sink the Belgrano when it was actually sailing away from our fleet and away from the Falklands, was in effect sabotaging any possibility of any peace plan succeeding, and Mrs Thatcher had 14 hours in which to consider the Peruvian peace plan that was being put forward to her. In which those fourteen hours those orders could have been rescinded.
    Thatcher: One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published.
    Gould: That is not good enough, Mrs Thatcher. We need ..
    Thatcher: Would you please let me answer? I lived with the responsibility for a very long time. I answered the question giving the facts, not anyone's opinions, but the facts. Those Peruvian peace proposals, which were only in outline, did not reach London until after the attack on the Belgrano—that is fact. I am sorry, that is fact, and I am going to finish—did not reach London until after the attack on the Belgrano. Moreover, we went on negotiating for another fortnight after that attack. I think it could only be in Britain that a Prime Minister was accused of sinking an enemy ship that was a danger to our Navy, when my main motive was to protect the boys in our Navy. That was my main motive, and I am very proud of it. One day all the facts will be revealed, and they will indicate as I have said.
    Lawley: Mrs Gould, have you got a new point to make, otherwise I must move on?
    Gould: Just one point. I understood that the Peruvian peace plans, on a Nationwide programme, were discussed on midnight, May 1st. If that outline did not reach London for another fourteen hours, ..
    Lawley: Mrs Thatcher has said that it didn't.
    Gould: .. I think there must be something very seriously wrong with our communications, and we are living in a nuclear age when we are going to have minutes to make decisions, not hours.
    Thatcher: I have indicated what the facts are, and would you accept that I am in a position to know exactly when they reached London? Exactly when the attack was made. I repeat, the job of the Prime Minister is to protect the lives of our boys, on our ships, and that's what I did.