Nelson Mandela, terrorist, bomber, murderer
-
Hate him and call him a terrorist all your life, the facts is that he will remain a hero and a warrior who played a major role in abolishing apartheid in SA and will be remembered and cherished for centuries to come.
See, thats where you are wromng. He was no 'warrior'. While being anti racist is admirable, you cannot justify the murder of civilians in bringing about its end.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
my dads from cape town, my brother lives there now.
It's starting to make sense now.
You really are pathetic. You are now saying I am a racist just because my dad was born in capetown. Why not do something about prejudice in thw world by not being so yourself?
-
When the ANC was formed, it was ILLEGAL in South Africa for people with dark skin to organize, much less to fight for their basic human rights. They were engaged in a war, and wars are never clean. That the apartheid government called them terrorists is little different than the British government of the late 1700s calling US revolutionaries terrorists.
Oh no, not another one who doesnt know the difference between military and civilan targets.
-
They aren't but the thing is Eric likes to argue but doesn't like to have a grown up argument and listen to both sides of the story
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
Did you just trot this lame and blanket statement out having read it on the internet somewhere? Go on, now jujstify it, tell me how I have ignored the side of the black in SA? Waiting.... (in vain I expect)
-
The English rebels, for they were English at the time, carried out bombing attacks killing civilians did they?
Erudite_Eric wrote:
The English rebels, for they were English at the time, carried out bombing attacks killing civilians did they?
Yes, actually. There are numerous accounts in American history where revolutionary soldiers, acting on orders from their commanders, blew up depots where the British had been storing gunpowder resulting in much personal and property "collateral damage." While the "tea party" in Boston Harbor is famous, it was only one of a great many such acts. People seen as being sympathetic to the British were assaulted and beaten by mobs, and it was not unusual for such people to have their homes ransacked, farms burned to the ground and places of business utterly destroyed. There are numerous recorded instances of political lynching. Former patriots like Benedict Arnold did not abandon the revolution and return to the British out of any sense of loyalty to the Crown; they abandoned the revolution in disgust at what the revolutionaries were willing to do for their independence.
-
Did you just trot this lame and blanket statement out having read it on the internet somewhere? Go on, now jujstify it, tell me how I have ignored the side of the black in SA? Waiting.... (in vain I expect)
No I wont Eric as I have had discussions with you before and if it is information that you don't want to hear then you normally do one of the following 1. dodge the question / information posed to you. 2. return with some derogatory comment. 3. ramble with your original statement until we give in and say you win.
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
-
Oh no, not another one who doesnt know the difference between military and civilan targets.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Oh no, not another one who doesnt know the difference between military and civilan targets.
The American Revolution was no different: civilians perceived as supporting the British were frequently targeted, their homes ransacked by mobs and their businesses burned to the ground. Politically motivated murders were not uncommon: I will look for references, but I know at least one Massachusetts Assemblyman was found hanged the day after voting against the colony's support of the American revolution. As I said, it was war. In war, no one has clean hands. What matters is what one does after winning , and Nelson Mandela has worked very, very hard to clean up the aftermath of that war.
-
So one wrong deserves another does it?
Erudite_Eric wrote:
So one wrong deserves another does it?
No, a wrong deserves to be righted. The whole reason for the right to bear arms is so that the people have a means of defending themselves from a corrupt government. Marc
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
The English rebels, for they were English at the time, carried out bombing attacks killing civilians did they?
Yes, actually. There are numerous accounts in American history where revolutionary soldiers, acting on orders from their commanders, blew up depots where the British had been storing gunpowder resulting in much personal and property "collateral damage." While the "tea party" in Boston Harbor is famous, it was only one of a great many such acts. People seen as being sympathetic to the British were assaulted and beaten by mobs, and it was not unusual for such people to have their homes ransacked, farms burned to the ground and places of business utterly destroyed. There are numerous recorded instances of political lynching. Former patriots like Benedict Arnold did not abandon the revolution and return to the British out of any sense of loyalty to the Crown; they abandoned the revolution in disgust at what the revolutionaries were willing to do for their independence.
Then by deffinition they were terrorists too. Of course that doesnt mean Mamndella was any more justified.
-
No I wont Eric as I have had discussions with you before and if it is information that you don't want to hear then you normally do one of the following 1. dodge the question / information posed to you. 2. return with some derogatory comment. 3. ramble with your original statement until we give in and say you win.
Every day, thousands of innocent plants are killed by vegetarians. Help end the violence EAT BACON
So thats a no, you cant thrn. Just as a I thought, it was an empty and ill considered statement you made.
-
In the midst of the global heart rending at hsi death, lets not forget just what he was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe[^] Umkhonto we Sizwe was set up by Mandella and has been responsible for many deaths and injuries. So yeah, Martin Luther King he isnt, Bin Laden he is. So lets keep things in perspective eh?
Really! The government who decorated Mandela with such title was the one who created apartheid system in the country. You do know about unnecessary police raids in black communities, which BTW were at sub-human living standards, that were carried out during this reign. They were the one who did Sharpeville massacre[^] which preceded the formation of military wings in ANC. So, you are saying he is terrorist because he fought against racist, discriminatory and brutal regime. Great. Here[^] is something you may want to know.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[^]
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
So one wrong deserves another does it?
No, a wrong deserves to be righted. The whole reason for the right to bear arms is so that the people have a means of defending themselves from a corrupt government. Marc
And a corrupt govt does not include innocent civilans. Look, I think Tony Blair is a terrorist and war criminal and should be locked up for life you know. I am not biassed against Mandella, it is all people who inflict pain and suffering on others in pursuit of their political goals that I detest.
-
Really! The government who decorated Mandela with such title was the one who created apartheid system in the country. You do know about unnecessary police raids in black communities, which BTW were at sub-human living standards, that were carried out during this reign. They were the one who did Sharpeville massacre[^] which preceded the formation of military wings in ANC. So, you are saying he is terrorist because he fought against racist, discriminatory and brutal regime. Great. Here[^] is something you may want to know.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[^]
d@nish wrote:
So, you are saying he is terrorist because he fought against racist, discriminatory and brutal regime
Where did I say that? Oh yes, thats right, I didnt did I, You just imagined I did because you have a simplstic dualistic thought process that says if SA is bad, Mandella is good. They are both bad. get it?
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Oh no, not another one who doesnt know the difference between military and civilan targets.
The American Revolution was no different: civilians perceived as supporting the British were frequently targeted, their homes ransacked by mobs and their businesses burned to the ground. Politically motivated murders were not uncommon: I will look for references, but I know at least one Massachusetts Assemblyman was found hanged the day after voting against the colony's support of the American revolution. As I said, it was war. In war, no one has clean hands. What matters is what one does after winning , and Nelson Mandela has worked very, very hard to clean up the aftermath of that war.
So they were terrorists too. Doesnt make them right. Doesnt make Mandella right.
-
d@nish wrote:
So, you are saying he is terrorist because he fought against racist, discriminatory and brutal regime
Where did I say that? Oh yes, thats right, I didnt did I, You just imagined I did because you have a simplstic dualistic thought process that says if SA is bad, Mandella is good. They are both bad. get it?
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Where did I say that?
That is obvious. Mandela did fight against the racist regime. According to you, he is terrorist. Hence, Mandela is a terrorist because he fought against racist regime.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
They are both bad. get it?
No, that is not correct. Mandela was charged with 193 so called terrorist activity charges. These activities were defined as act of terrorism from the same government which divided the nation. So the charges themselves hold no water.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[^]
-
And a corrupt govt does not include innocent civilans. Look, I think Tony Blair is a terrorist and war criminal and should be locked up for life you know. I am not biassed against Mandella, it is all people who inflict pain and suffering on others in pursuit of their political goals that I detest.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
t is all people who inflict pain and suffering on others in pursuit of their political goals that I detest.
I certainly empathize with that. There's a lot of pain and suffering, and not just because of direct "violence". For example, I think this gov't is causing lots of pain and suffering with it's f*** up health care system, lobbyists, etc. Yes, ultimately, Ghandi had it right, really embracing non-violent resistance. Marc
-
What on earthis that supposed to mean? I am abusive because I am emotionally NOT ignoring the fact saints dont exist? How the hell does that work?
Erudite_Eric wrote:
What on earthis that supposed to mean?
It's supposed to be an explanation on why I gave a harsh vote, for what looks like a rational remark in the lounge. I'm not good at explaining stuff. Your only reason to make an issue out of it, is because you find it unfair that he is being treated as a hero. On his dying day. Your reason is based on emotion; something "feels" unfair. Rationally, there are no saints, no hero's. We're all (mostly) human. Further, news has the tendency to be dramatized; it does not merely snow, it storms. The Dow does not go down half a point, it crashes to it's "weekly low". PC sales do not simply slump without anyone asking if it's the end of the desktop (or Microsoft) era. I had the choice between marking it as spam or abuse; it's certainly not spam, but it shouldn't be in the lounge either - not today. Had you made your point any other day, I'd simply ignore it - but not on his dying day. So 'abuse', since it would be offensive for some readers.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
t is all people who inflict pain and suffering on others in pursuit of their political goals that I detest.
I certainly empathize with that. There's a lot of pain and suffering, and not just because of direct "violence". For example, I think this gov't is causing lots of pain and suffering with it's f*** up health care system, lobbyists, etc. Yes, ultimately, Ghandi had it right, really embracing non-violent resistance. Marc
Also peaceful protest wouild have gaine support from the whites. Not all south africans were fascists you know.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Where did I say that?
That is obvious. Mandela did fight against the racist regime. According to you, he is terrorist. Hence, Mandela is a terrorist because he fought against racist regime.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
They are both bad. get it?
No, that is not correct. Mandela was charged with 193 so called terrorist activity charges. These activities were defined as act of terrorism from the same government which divided the nation. So the charges themselves hold no water.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[^]
Did you read the link? His organisation killed many people. He was a terrorist.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
t is all people who inflict pain and suffering on others in pursuit of their political goals that I detest.
I certainly empathize with that. There's a lot of pain and suffering, and not just because of direct "violence". For example, I think this gov't is causing lots of pain and suffering with it's f*** up health care system, lobbyists, etc. Yes, ultimately, Ghandi had it right, really embracing non-violent resistance. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Yes, ultimately, Ghandi had it right, really embracing non-violent resistance.
Unfortunately even Ghandi was not beyond a bit of political manipulation himself - on one occasion he threatened to starve himself to death knowing full well that if he did so there would be riots on the streets. Ambedkar, who incidentally did much more for the untouchables than Gandhi did, gave in and Gandhi had his way - hardly an act of non-violence. Basically I find life is messy and complicated and claims of people who are completely pure and unblemished are what fairy tales are made of. I prefer Philip Zimbardo's much more nuanced and down to earth take on heroes and villains www.lucifereffect.com/[^]
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens