Nelson Mandela, terrorist, bomber, murderer
-
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
-
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
GuyThiebaut wrote:
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.
Indeed. I'll take a look at the book too. Thanks! Marc
-
This is in about as poor a taste as I can think of and does not belong here.
Peter Wasser Art is making something out of nothing and selling it. Frank Zappa
pwasser wrote:
This is in about as poor a taste as I can think of
Err...either you need to get out more or you probably need to give up looking at anything on the internet. Stick to the kiddy section of the local library, books only, and you should be good.
-
By that definition, George Washington and his cronies[^] were terrorists who should have been hanged for treason.
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
unjust taxation
I pity you. I never knew unjust taxation was a greater crime than apartheid.
-
There is a difference between a militia taking on an army and a terrorist killing civilians thorugh bombs. I would have thought that quite obvious.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
There is a difference between a militia taking on an army and a terrorist killing civilians thorugh bombs.
That is simplistic and not an apt analogy. For starters civilians died and were threatened in the US civil war. And military technology was significantly different then. If the US revolution had happened in the 1950s then it is very likely that more bombs would have been used.
-
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.
-
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[^]
d@nish wrote:
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.
No sorry. You are mistaken. He didn't say that. He said he is a terrorist because the group he formed targeted civilian targets. You might challenge something in that statement, but you can't change the statement to make your point.
-
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?
You are so right. Anyone who fought against oppression of the majority by a minority is a terrorist. Jomo Kenyatta was a terrorist. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. George Washington was a terrorist.
-
He also did a remarkable amount of good in his life in the face opposition from an apartheid government. Apartheid is the real villain in all of this. And today I am reminded also that the city I live in trolled the SA government in the mid-80s by renaming the street the South African consulate was on to Nelson Mandela Place. (I love Glasgow)
User group: Scottish Developers Blog: The Blog of Colin Angus Mackay Quote: Man who stand on hill with mouth open wait long time for roast duck to drop in.
And Calcutta renamed Park Street on which the US Consulate stood to Ho Chi Minh Street.
-
Shameel wrote:
I never knew unjust taxation was a greater crime than apartheid.
What specific part of apartheid do you think existed which did not have a counterpart in the early Americas?
-
Apartheid existed everywhere and still exists in many parts of the world, I did not deny that. The question here is if it acceptable to launch armed resistance against a government that systematically institutionalized and legalized apartheid.
Shameel wrote:
Apartheid existed everywhere and still...
Which does nothing to address the specific statement that you made and to which I responded. AGAIN which specific part of apartheid, some specific practice that occurred, which you know about and which you believe did NOT have a specific counter part in the early Americas?