Nelson Mandela dead at 95

[Nippelspanner]

What an extraordinary life just came to an end.
Rest in Peace, Mr. President.

Source (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/05/nelson-mandela-obituary-south-africa-apartheid/2027237/)

[Penguin]

RIP, Sir!
Too bad the ANC didn't manage to follow his spirit.

[u crank]

R.I.P. Mr. Mandela.:salute:

[mapuc]

RIP Mandela

[Cybermat47]

Rest in Peace sir :salute:

[vienna]

A true giant in history and a response to all those who say one person cannot change injustice. RIP, sir...


<O>

[Tribesman]

A great man.
R.I.P.

[CaptainHaplo]

So the former head of the UmKhonto we Sizwe - the terrorist wing of the ANC, finally is a rotting carcass.

The man who admitted he was responsible - in whole or in part - for 158 acts of public violence - some including bombings that killed innocent women and children - finally lies dead.

The man who all his life refused to renounce violence.

The man who was happy to sing about killing all the whites.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fcOXqFQw2hc

May God have mercy on his soul - because I sure as hell wouldn't.

[Cybermat47]

^^^

Wrong thread.

[Madox58]

Now your not being PC.
:nope:
That should bring a whole slew of posts to this thread that I shall end up wasteing time reading.

Time to stock up on some pop-corn as I ate all of it reading the Irony thread or whatever you want to call it.
:haha:

[Cybermat47]

Now your not being PC.
:nope:
That should bring a whole slew of posts to this thread that I shall end up wasteing time reading.

Time to stock up on some pop-corn as I ate all of it reading the Irony thread or whatever you want to call it.
:haha:

+1 :up:

I'll get some sausages.

[Madox58]

+1 :up:

I'll get some sausages.
:D
Sounds like Tail Gate time to me!
:rock:
(If someone shows up with Hamm's? I say we kick his arse!)
:03:

[Tribesman]

So the former head of the UmKhonto we Sizwe - the terrorist wing of the ANC, finally is a rotting carcass.

The man who admitted he was responsible - in whole or in part - for 158 acts of public violence - some including bombings that killed innocent women and children - finally lies dead.

The man who all his life refused to renounce violence.

The man who was happy to sing about killing all the whites.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fcOXqFQw2hc

May God have mercy on his soul - because I sure as hell wouldn't.
If you want to write your hate filled bigoted crap perhaps you should have chosen a video that didn't feature some good ol'white folks singing the song:rotfl2:
But hey what exactly would you call the AWB nuts who you just linked to , The suidlander movement is a white supremacist terrorist organisation:doh:
Edit to add
Would it be permissible to link some of Gustav Mullers stuff from The White Resister website, or does all the Neo Nazi crap on it mean it would be against forum rules

[TarJak]

:D
Sounds like Tail Gate time to me!
:rock:
(If someone shows up with Hamm's? I say we kick his arse!)
:03:

Just so long as no one turns up with Lone Star or Fosters either.

[Madox58]

And I see the entertainment has arrived.
(I mean Tribesman)
:haha:
Foster's or Lone Star or Hamm's?
:hmmm:
We kick thier arses and throw them out.
:D

You bringing the Shrimp?

[Tribesman]

And I see the entertainment has arrived.
(I mean Tribesman)
:haha:
Foster's or Lone Star or Hamm's?
:hmmm:
We kick thier arses and throw them out.
:D

You bringing the Shrimp?
The entertainment arrived with the link
some choice quotes.
Kill the ******s! Exterminate the Jews!
This negretto is now being grilled extra crispy by Lucifer..
He's jew.
So, for him, he's not part of the White race.
And he also hates everyone who is White and christian.
There's another white guy on the left but I can't tell if he's a jew.
jews and ******s should be exterminated
With Joe Slovo, the Jew from Poland1 WHAT does a Polish Jews know about Africa?

Simple lesson for Haplo, think about your sources before you post:oops:

[Madox58]

:hmmm:
OK. I ain't digging that deep. Don't really give a crap to muster up the effort to be honest.

He's dead. Give it a few days and it will be a non-news item.
But the thread will have generated a life of it's own!
:haha:

(In case you wonder? I am a nut case!)

[Skybird]

Haplo points correctly at some "dark spots" in Mandela'S life. Mandela cooperated closely with the Communist party during his terrorist time. He overwatched 150 terror bombings that killed scores of civilians. In recent years there was growing indications revealed by biographers and historians that he was not just cooperating with the communist party, but was a member and even a high ranking party leader in the hierarchy.

The way people turned into melting wax when meeting him, I always found disgusting - like I find it disgusting to see people melting like wax when meeting a Pope , a Dalai Lama, or whomever. I do not like for principle reason people switching off their brains.

Whether Mandela indeed turned from Saul to Paul, we never will know for sure. I assume the public has allowed quite some transfiguration to be happening. As far as I am concerned, I take note of the news that he died, and not more.

[flostt]

RIP, Sir!
Too bad the ANC didn't manage to follow his spirit.


Wise Words....In view of his successors Mbeki and Zuma in presidency.....

He was admirable for being able to forgive after 27 years in prison, fight against the system which was introduced during the colonialism (which was the root of the Apartheid (and I know what I am talking about, I grew up in that place in the 70's and 80's) and being able to bring "white", "black" and "coloured" together.

His social competence and political instinct made way for a new constitution in 1994.....and should be an inspiration for all politicians nowadays who are only interested in protecting the interests of their party and not representing the people who originally voted them.


Rest in Peace, the world has lost a fine Statesman

:salute:

[Madox58]

So you get forgiven for saying "Kill Whitey"
But if you should ever say "Kill Blackey" that will haunt you for life.
Makes since.
:nope:

[CaptainHaplo]

Haplo points correctly at some "dark spots" in Mandela'S life. Mandela cooperated closely with the Communist party during his terrorist time. He overwatched 150 terror bombings that killed scores of civilians.

Whether Mandela indeed turned from Saul to Paul

Heresy! He was loved by bajillions - he must have always been perfect. Or so some would have people think....

So you get forgiven for saying "Kill Whitey"
But if you should ever say "Kill Blackey" that will haunt you for life.
Makes since.
:nope:

Now privateer - you know better than to bring common sense into this....

[flostt]

he was sentenced for life inprisonment....he paid for his terrorist activities...

He did not sit in his cell and do nothing like all inmates nowadays...

he had to work in the stone quarry..... and believe me, Robben Island is a place you want to avoid...

[CaptainHaplo]

he was sentenced for life inprisonment....he paid for his terrorist activities...

He did not sit in his cell and do nothing like all inmates nowadays...

he had to work in the stone quarry..... and believe me, Robben Island is a place you want to avoid...

Did he spend his life in prison? No - he was released prior to his death. So he did not pay in full.

Especially when compared to the payment his victims had to pay.

[Tribesman]

So you get forgiven for saying "Kill Whitey"
But if you should ever say "Kill Blackey" that will haunt you for life.
Makes since.
But he didn't. Its not kill whitey, its kill the small white supremacist fundamentalist offshoot of calvinsitic protestantism which makes up one segment of the Africaaner population which itself is one segment of the white south African population.

If people are going to condemn him for those words at least get the words right:03:

[TarJak]

And I see the entertainment has arrived.
(I mean Tribesman)
:haha:
Foster's or Lone Star or Hamm's?
:hmmm:
We kick thier arses and throw them out.
:D

You bringing the Shrimp?

Jason can make his own way. ;)

[AndyJWest]

The South African Apartheid system was based upon the systematic use of violence to assert the 'right' of a minority to subjugate and oppress the majority - and as such, the use of force to overthrow it was legitimate. Should Mandela be immune for criticism? No - but cut out the crap about 'terrorism' - Madela was no more a 'terrorist' than the fighters of the French Resistance were.

[CaptainHaplo]

So you get forgiven for saying "Kill Whitey"
But if you should ever say "Kill Blackey" that will haunt you for life.
Makes since.
:nope:

See - that's the funniest thing. Because "kill blackey" was exactly what Mandela and the ANC - along with their political competitors, the IFP - were all about. The HRC (Human Rights Commission) did some digging, and guess what they found...

According to the Human Rights Committee statistics, 21,000 people died in political violence in South Africa during apartheid – of whom 14,000 people died during the six-year transition process from 1990-1994. The book lists the number of incidents, dates and those involved. This includes SA Defence Force actions, for instance the 600 deaths at Kassinga in Angola during the war in 1978. Of those deaths, the vast majority, 92% have been primarily due to Africans killing Africans – such as the inter-tribal battles for territory: this book’s detailed analyses of the period June 1990 to July 1993 indicates a total of 8,580 (92%) of the 9,325 violent deaths during the period June 1990 to July 1993 were caused by Africans killing Africans, or as the news media often calls it, “Black on Black” violence – hostel killings, Inkatha Freedom Party vs. ANC killings and taxi and turf war violence. The activities of the Civil Cooperation Bureau as outlined by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, were also included in these figures. The security forces caused 518 deaths (5.6%) throughout this period. And again, during the transitional period, the primary causes of deaths were not security forces, nor white right-wing violence against Blacks, but mainly due to “black-on-black necklace murders,” tribal conflict between the ANC-IFP, bombs by the ANC and PAC’s military wings in shopping centers, landmines on farm roads, etc.
http://www.censorbugbear.org/farmitracker/reports/view/866#DYFmRVG2TtAdvWkR.99

The revered Bishop Desmond Tutu stated on 12 April, 2013 that SA was more violent than it was in the times of apartheid.

http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2013/04/12/sa-more-violent-now-than-under-apartheid-says-tutu

But in the US - you just don't talk about black on black crime - even when its not in your country. Because apparently people that "kill blackey" are only criminals if they are (or appear to be) white. Otherwise it apparently is ok.....

[nikimcbee]

Jason can make his own way. ;)

Did somebody say shrimp?:hmmm:

TJ's bringing Fosters? The Poms must have won the Ashes then?:D

Can I upgrade the foster's to Crown Royal?

[Tribesman]

The South African Apartheid system was based upon the systematic use of violence to assert the 'right' of a minority to subjugate and oppress the majority - and as such, the use of force to overthrow it was legitimate. Should Mandela be immune for criticism? No - but cut out the crap about 'terrorism' - Madela was no more a 'terrorist' than the fighters of the French Resistance were.
Well you can see the problem .
the ANC shouldn't have bothered with silly stuff like....

Our programme is the Freedom Charter; it defines the goals of all democrats regardless of colour, race or creed.
That's just too confusing
It should have chosen something more catchy like ....
No taxation without representation.
Terrorists eh, they get everywhere:rotfl2:

[CaptainHaplo]

Madela was no more a 'terrorist' than the fighters of the French Resistance were.

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Mandela and the AMK intentionally targeted non-combatants. (Magoo's Bar bombing is simply one example.) That makes him a terrorist.

Do you have any historical example where the French Resistance intentionally targeted civilians? I looked and found none, nor do I recall any.

[August]

Say what you want about the man but once he got out of jail he did seem to stop his wife from ordering more "necklacings"

[Skybird]

The South African Apartheid system was based upon the systematic use of violence to assert the 'right' of a minority to subjugate and oppress the majority - and as such, the use of force to overthrow it was legitimate. Should Mandela be immune for criticism? No - but cut out the crap about 'terrorism' - Madela was no more a 'terrorist' than the fighters of the French Resistance were.
BS. The French resistance fought against and targeted German military operations: by sabotage, spying, assassination, supply interruption, intel gathering, assaults, etc. , and sometimes, when targeting these, it accepted that civilian French innocents could be caught in the line of fire. But these were not deliberately targetted, they did not make targeting French civilian population the mission objective. The ANC however did many bombings against deliberately civilian targets, and killed black and white civilians alike. Including school busses.

But this lack of caring for differences is not new, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it gets all declared the same, too. The one side makes civilian families and people and children the target of lethal force - and this is being minimised (and in the end: legitimised) by claiming that when the other side accepting occasional collateral damages when aiming at not civilian but military targets of the enemy and civilians happen to get caught in the line of fire: that this is of the same moral quality (or not). That way, the victim and the attacker get declared to be of the same rights and guilts.

Whom you are deliberately targetting, makes a huge moral difference.

[Mr Quatro]

at the moment of death that's who you are forever ... :yep:

let the poor man rest in peace ... if Haplo died right now he would ... ria
(rest in anger)

[soopaman2]

Alot of anger towards him. I guess fighting Aparthied is bad? any of you walk a mile in his shoes? Aparthied made our segregated drinking fountains look like black utopia, South Africa sucked for blacks.....and it was their native land....

Believer that American slavery was right and the union commited war crimes?

Pretty much the same thing, I am sorry equality of man is so hard to believe in, it is, that is why Mandela and others had to take such extreme measures.

Such Rascism.

Sorry to offend anyones white supremacy. Must be the liberal in me, and I voted for the negroid president...2 times... Now whatcha gonna do?

[Tribesman]

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Mandela and the AMK intentionally targeted non-combatants. (Magoo's Bar bombing is simply one example.) That makes him a terrorist.

Do you have any historical example where the French Resistance intentionally targeted civilians? I looked and found none, nor do I recall any.

Oh dear oh dear.
Magoo's bar bombing, or the "Why not bar" bombing. you really don't think do you.
Both the trial of Robert McBride(who sounds kinda white don't he) and the TRC hearing into the bombing found that the pub was among those targets in Durban chosen specifically because they were frequented by the state security services.
McBride was then instructed to identify other areas with high concentrations of "enemy personnel", whether they were on duty or not. :yep:

[soopaman2]

If Mandela was white he would be a hero to you, depite his tactics.


Maybe he was sick of Europeans trying to tell South Africa what to do...


No one critisizes America for breaking away from Britain, I see his movement as the same thing, a fight for freedom.

I am sure his tactics were bad, but WHAT EFFING RIGHT DOES EUROPE (yes Europe , you all started this imperialistic crap, and have a hard time letting it go) HAVE TO INFLUENCE A SOVERIEGN NATION?

Why does the Boer oppression endear so many outside of S Africa so much., mad you lost the territory? You lost the 13 colonies too, come take those back tough colonist Euro guys?


Leave them alone! For real, what interest is there for you besides a 200 year old imperialistic pissing contest.

(EDIT: So many people who minimize what Mandela did, it pisses me off. sorry.)

[Cybermat47]

sorry.

It's cool.

[CaptainHaplo]

Alot of anger towards him. I guess fighting Aparthied is bad? any of you walk a mile in his shoes? Aparthied made our segregated drinking fountains look like black utopia, South Africa sucked for blacks.....and it was their native land....

Believer that American slavery was right and the union commited war crimes?

Pretty much the same thing, I am sorry equality of man is so hard to believe in, it is, that is why Mandela and others had to take such extreme measures.

Such Rascism.

Sorry to offend anyones white supremacy. Must be the liberal in me, and I voted for the negroid president...2 times... Now whatcha gonna do?

So you call it racist when 92% of deaths were "black on black"? Or is it that I am a racist for pointing out that Mandela and the ANC were more about killing their political competition than they were about actually ending apartheid? It has nothing to do with "white supremacy" - isn't it funny the people that want to elevate Mandela are the ones that scream racist. He killed whites and blacks - and he killed more blacks than he did whites. Does that make HIM racist?

What your pissed about is that I won't respect a murdering thug who is held up as a hero. Well guess what - I don't think much of Che Guevara either. Or Trotsky, Pol Pot, Masu, Mariam, Chavez, Castro or Zedong either. The list goes on and on. Thugs who wanted power and would do whatever it took to get it.

So call me a racist if you like - it has nothing to do with race - it has to do with choices of action. If you call killing 3 women in a bar with a bomb heroism, then we have no common ground. If you call ordering murders from a jail cell - including "neclacing" where a tire was put around someone's neck (usually a black someone from a rival political gang!), filled with a flammable fuel and then lit on fire as a means of execution "heroism" or "fighting for freedom" - then there just is no reasoning with you.

[soopaman2]

Americas civil war had many victims (a million plus dead or wounded on both sides), not intended. But the result made for a free nation.

You got your reasons to hate him, and that is fine with me, but I got my reasons to like him, and I hope that is fine with you.:up:

(in other words, we should agree to disagree :))

The results of his work made for a non segregated society. Unless your into white supremacy in Africa, where whites are not native. See my point, we did not belong there, in the first place, telling those people what to do and how, that is my point.

How would you feel were it the other way around? Would you not rebel? We are 200 years past lords and kings, yet ...Nevermind...

And people think Americans have an unfair sense of supremacy, oughta look at how euros still try to play lord and conquerer, even when it is far far over for them

[CaptainHaplo]

(in other words, we should agree to disagree :))

I don't hate the man - I hate his actions and the propaganda put out to make him appear beatific. It may sound like I hate him, but I don't. I still wouldn't have much mercy for his soul - but then again, I believe my Creator is a lot bigger in that regard than I am, and I defer to whatever His judgment will be.

As for us agreeing to disagree - I could do that - except for the whole "racist" thing. Calling names and then going "well, can't we just get along" just doesn't sit well with me.

I am sure if I looked you in the eye, insulted you and then held out my hand and said "lets just agree to disagree, slimeball" you'd probably feel the same way.

[Tribesman]

It has nothing to do with "white supremacy"
When you defend a state that is built on its belief in white supremacy and post links to "Christian" fundamentalists who believe in white supremacy then it is about white supremacy.

[soopaman2]

I don't hate the man - I hate his actions and the propaganda put out to make him appear beatific. It may sound like I hate him, but I don't. I still wouldn't have much mercy for his soul - but then again, I believe my Creator is a lot bigger in that regard than I am, and I defer to whatever His judgment will be.

As for us agreeing to disagree - I could do that - except for the whole "racist" thing. Calling names and then going "well, can't we just get along" just doesn't sit well with me.

I am sure if I looked you in the eye, insulted you and then held out my hand and said "lets just agree to disagree, slimeball" you'd probably feel the same way.

Wow what a stretch.

Nice way to get out of being insensitive and putting it on me. I just asked you to walk a mile in his aparthied shoes.

How would you like to face rascism that made 1950-1960s america look tame?

You seem to subscribe to it when you defended his Boer Oppressors, so pardon my assumption to rascism.


I tried to be nice and extend a laurel branch, but we can debate this, and wreck each other verbally for awhile longer, I got it in me.

I acknowledged what he did wrong, but you never acknowledged what he did right. So who is being unreasonable here?

So mandela had no impact on world events, and deserves no praise, just scorn? Is that your point?

HE DID NOTHING FOR HIS COUNTRY, NOTHING?

(EDIT: all crap aside he is S Africas George Washington, and no outside opinion can take that from the sentiments of the people.

Once again, lets just agree to disagree, I will never see it your way, nor you mine.

[Skybird]

Americas civil war had many victims (a million plus dead or wounded on both sides), not intended. But the result made for a free nation.

Which was, as far as you mean slavery, a side-effect, and probably not really the intention, some letter quotes from Lincoln leave little doubt that the slaves was not that much a point of interest for him. The real intention was that Northern states wanted to socialize the debts they had accumulat, and demanded the southern states to pay for them. Which the South obviously did not like that much, and why should they - at that time it was no one-national union with a centralised one-governmet-fits-all. Why should the one who managed economy better, pay for the debts resulting from the other who wasted more than he could afford? there is a reason why the Southern economy and finance system was annihilated so mercilessly by the North. It was to destroy any possible basis for autonomy and to make sure the South could never afford to live independant from the North again.

Sounds familiar to you? You are right - history is repeating itself today. In EUpistan.

I have become extremely hesitent to see the freeing of slaves as a driving motive of the American civil war. It was about money, destroying local sovereignity and centralised power to strengthen control over the creation of money. Once that was secured, the age of real monumental spending frenzies began, slow at first, but with constantly growing pace. It lasts until today.

Slaves - who cares for slaves... pfffft... Not back then. Not today. We just have globalised the slave quarters, to not have them in our sights thta much.

[soopaman2]

Which was, as far as you mean slavery, a side-effect, and probably not really the intention, some letter quotes from Lincoln leave little doubt that the slaves was not that much a point of interest for him. The real intention was that Northern states wanted to socialize the debts they had accumulat, and demanded the southern states to pay for them. Which the South obviously did not like that much, and why should they - and that time it was no one-national union with a centralised one-governmet-fits-all.

Sounds familiar to you? You are right - history is repeating itself today.

I have become extremely hesitent to see the freeing of slaves as a driving motive of the American civil war. It was about money, destroying local sovereignity and centralised power to strengthen control over the creation of money. Once that was secured, the age of real monumental spending frenzies began, slow at first, but with constantly growing pace. It lasts until today.

Slaves - who cares for slaves... pfffft... Not back then. Not today. We just have globalised the slave quarters, to not have them in our sights thta much.

Sadly we were the last nation to make slavery a bad thing. Every country has its demons, and even the most die hard of southerners know enslaving someone is wrong, they were slighted by being told what to do by the feds, and I get that, In time the south woulda abolished slavery on there own.


But look at what Mandela did, within a country that is way less tolerant than us. That was my point, some folks seem to think him as evil as Hitler, when all he wanted was an equal voice for natives.

The white Dutch Euros owned S africa for years, with staggering rascism, beyond what we could equate in America all he wanted was a voice. He earned that voice, and no matter how some do not like him, he is a voice of his people, something the people deserve, after being crapped on by Euro colonizers for hundreds of years...


Walk a mile in his shoes, we in America kicked Britains ass, for less.

(edit: who wants outsiders to dictate what is best for us?)

[em2nought]

I bet Hillary is happy she won't have to run against him for the democratic nomination. :har:

[CaptainHaplo]

Sadly we were the last nation to make slavery a bad thing.

No - Slavery was legal on this planet up until 1981 - when Mauritania formally made it illegal. 116 years after the US War between the States.

But look at what Mandela did, within a country that is way less tolerant than us. That was my point, some folks seem to think him as evil as Hitler, when all he wanted was an equal voice for natives.

And it is this that creates the disconnect. I have linked FACT that shows that he wasn't about "equal voice for natives". He wanted equal voice for the natives that agreed with his political group - the rest he was perfectly happy to have killed. Sounds kind of like the brown shirts in Germany during the 1930's to me....

You claim people want to ignore what he has done - odd - because all I have done is point out what he has done. Somehow that made me a "racist".

The white Dutch Euros owned S africa for years, with staggering rascism, beyond what we could equate in America all he wanted was a voice. He earned that voice, and no matter how some do not like him, he is a voice of his people, something the people deserve, after being crapped on by Euro colonizers for hundreds of years..

I am not defending Colonialism - but you talk about the people being crapped on. Yet he and his ilk, along with their political competition - were responsible for 92% of the deaths that occurred during transition. Black on black killings. So who crapped on the people more - the evil whites who repressed the people, or the blacks who just executed them?

You say I don't give him credit for the good things he did. Tell me - what were they? He didn't write the SA interim constitution. As President, he in fact increased military spending drastically - when his people needed the government to rebuild their society. Should we applaud him simply because he "beat" his rivals - and ignore the way he did it? Should we celebrate his camaraderie and praise of tyrants like Khadafy?

Walk a mile in his shoes, we in America kicked Britains ass, for less.


We declared our independence after following the law as written. Check out the Declaration of Arms, 1775. The "rebellion" came only after working within the system - and we fought our oppressors - not each other. The same can not be said for the ANC - who killed their fellow "blacks" with abandon - and in much greater numbers than they did their "white oppressors". That alone says much.

[Highbury]

This thread was always bound to turn, but I will put my $0.02 in anyways :arrgh!:

I appreciate and value what he did after his release from prison, but I refrain from making him a hero because I also realize he was in prison for more than the color of his skin.

I never believe terrorism is justified. Whether it is trying to get equal rights, or drive a foreign power from your land.

If you disagree with me or find my post inflammatory, I apologize.

[Iceman]

Rest in Peace....

[TarJak]

Did somebody say shrimp?:hmmm:

TJ's bringing Fosters? The Poms must have won the Ashes then?:D

Can I upgrade the foster's to Crown Royal?

No Fosters in my fridge mate. And looking at the current score its unlikely I'll be needing any this series. No crown royal either but I'm sure we can find some Bud light for you. :p

[Tribesman]

Sounds kind of like the brown shirts in Germany during the 1930's to me....

From the person who linked to some rather colourful Neo Nazi propaganda to support their view?
That's kinda rich isn't it.
I suppose its OK though as those racist scum call themselves "christians".

You claim people want to ignore what he has done - odd - because all I have done is point out what he has done. Somehow that made me a "racist".

What makes you appear a racist is your posts.

I am not defending Colonialism - but you talk about the people being crapped on. Yet he and his ilk, along with their political competition - were responsible for 92% of the deaths that occurred during transition. Black on black killings. So who crapped on the people more - the evil whites who repressed the people, or the blacks who just executed them?

To draw a comparison which you don't like, many of the black groups from the homelands were funded and supported by the racist regime to combat the drive for one man one vote.
Your attempt there is the same as complaining about the French resistance killing people in the French Milice, or Croatian partisans killing Ustashe.

We declared our independence after following the law as written. Check out the Declaration of Arms, 1775. The "rebellion" came only after working within the system - and we fought our oppressors - not each other. The same can not be said for the ANC - who killed their fellow "blacks" with abandon - and in much greater numbers than they did their "white oppressors". That alone says much.
Actually it says nothing, not only does it say nothing but it reveals that your knowledge of your own nations history and that of South Africa is very flawed.

[Jimbuna]

I appreciate and value what he did after his release from prison, but I refrain from making him a hero because I also realize he was in prison for more than the colour of his skin.



That bit certainly works for me.

Try and keep this thread at an acceptable level everyone.

TIA

[AndreasT]

Well, I was born in South Africa and lived there most of my life before I came to Germany. I was raised to hate Blacks, and Mandela was a terrorist.
I do think it is right to fight for the good even thought that is a paradox. You cannot suppress people, and if these people plant bombs I can understand it.
Sometimes I want to plant a bomb in Germany. In this free and good democracy.
If the people want a change they will change it, no matter what.
Sure a lot of deaths down there are black against black. Partly because of racism. But that is simply put. It is more complex that.
Partly it is because of having no perspective, and because of being poor. Really poor. How many have been in a Township. I lived near Alexandria, near my old home. Basically the poorest place in South Africa, on the other side of the street was basically the richest place in South Africa.
I am no friend of the ANC, at all. What we see today was planted a long time ago.
Mandela is a symbol for good, if right or wrong, what ever, however for the good he symbolises, he can be an inspiration for more good on this world.
If only the humans had the desire to do good on this world.

[Skybird]

If you disagree with me or find my post inflammatory, I apologize.
You should not. There is no right to be not offended, so you owe no apology, especially not for your opinion.

[Skybird]

Well, I was born in South Africa and lived there most of my life before I came to Germany. I was raised to hate Blacks, and Mandela was a terrorist.
I do think it is right to fight for the good even thought that is a paradox. You cannot suppress people, and if these people plant bombs I can understand it.
Sometimes I want to plant a bomb in Germany. In this free and good democracy.
If the people want a change they will change it, no matter what.
Sure a lot of deaths down there are black against black. Partly because of racism. But that is simply put. It is more complex that.
Partly it is because of having no perspective, and because of being poor. Really poor. How many have been in a Township. I lived near Alexandria, near my old home. Basically the poorest place in South Africa, on the other side of the street was basically the richest place in South Africa.
I am no friend of the ANC, at all. What we see today was planted a long time ago.
Mandela is a symbol for good, if right or wrong, what ever, however for the good he symbolises, he can be an inspiration for more good on this world.
If only the humans had the desire to do good on this world.
It'S not about what is being done now, and after Mandela left office. It is about what he did and/or authorized himself in violence. I accept violence in a fight to overthrow oppression or racism, if other means fail. I also accept the chance of collateral damage when targeting military, economic and politically important targets. What I do not accept is the intentional targetting of civilians that happen to be no such targets and also do not had bad luck to stand in the line of fire when attacking above targets. There is no excuse for bombing a schoolbus with children, for example. A public market place. That is no freedom fight, that is no collateral damage - that is bloodthirsty murder, and not one bit more. If the military does it, it is called "war crimes".

[Penguin]

So the former head of the UmKhonto we Sizwe - the terrorist wing of the ANC, finally is a rotting carcass.

The man who admitted he was responsible - in whole or in part - for 158 acts of public violence - some including bombings that killed innocent women and children - finally lies dead.

The man who all his life refused to renounce violence.

The man who was happy to sing about killing all the whites.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fcOXqFQw2hc

May God have mercy on his soul - because I sure as hell wouldn't.

Congrats, way to piss on a still warm body by a self appointed "Christian". What did the guy who was left to rot on a cross again said about forgiveness?
But hey, that's too much knowledge to expect from a guy who is unable to even correctly quote the alleged number from the loony "Christian" website that states it. Well, my opinion doesn't count, as I am from a country which is undermined by the Satanists, just like the Vatican, eh? :rotfl2: (Taken from the same source which states the 156 number).

Today I learned that Mandela was all about killing the white man, but also about killing the black man. Guess the Coloured had the best cards.
Bonus question: Is the US Army a terrorist organization, because a small group of them deliberately killed civilians in My Lai?

[Penguin]

d I know what I am talking about, I grew up in that place in the 70's and 80's) [..]
Rest in Peace, the world has lost a fine Statesman


Well, I was born in South Africa and lived there most of my life [...]
Mandela is a symbol for good, if right or wrong, what ever, however for the good he symbolises, he can be an inspiration for more good on this world.
If only the humans had the desire to do good on this world.

Thanks for your input guys!:salute:
Your opinions are in line which what I heard from the majority of folks from ZA. A great disappointment about recent politics and corruption, but only a fringe minority would want to go back to the days of Apartheid.
Sadly opinions of insiders don't seem to count much on here, where people prefer to read the propaganda which fits into their black&white thinking (no pun intended).

If you disagree with me or find my post inflammatory, I apologize.
Imo there is a mile-high difference between a sober voicing of a critical opinion and mindless parrotting of facts straight from the loony-bin. Your post definitely falls into the first category!

[Tribesman]

It'S not about what is being done now, and after Mandela left office. It is about what he did and/or authorized himself in violence. I accept violence in a fight to overthrow oppression or racism, if other means fail. I also accept the chance of collateral damage when targeting military, economic and politically important targets. What I do not accept is the intentional targetting of civilians that happen to be no such targets and also do not had bad luck to stand in the line of fire when attacking above targets. There is no excuse for bombing a schoolbus with children, for example. A public market place. That is no freedom fight, that is no collateral damage - that is bloodthirsty murder, and not one bit more. If the military does it, it is called "war crimes".
Unfortunately your point is completely invalid as you are an individual who has stated that there should be no rules in conflict at all and that it should be as brutal as humanly possible until it achieves its aims.


@penguin
Congrats, way to piss on a still warm body by a self appointed "Christian". What did the guy who was left to rot on a cross again said about forgiveness?
But hey, that's too much knowledge to expect from a guy who is unable to even correctly quote the alleged number from the loony "Christian" website that states it. Well, my opinion doesn't count, as I am from a country which is undermined by the Satanists, just like the Vatican, eh? :rotfl2: (Taken from the same source which states the 156 number).


In all honesty you could put it down as a genuine mistake.
If the individual in question hadn't previously linked to crazy white supremacist "christians" and defended their twisted ideology.:nope:


So then.
Wars are nasty, civil wars and wars of independence are even nastier. People who echo that crap about the tree of liberty needing the blood of tyrants must accept that their idea means the blood of a hell of a lot of innocents too.
People now taking exactly the opposite position that they regularly take on matters such as this are nothing but hypocrits.:down:

[Oberon]

http://narwhaler.com/original/gf/g/islamic-facepalm-GfGzaX.jpg

Didn't take long for the usual suspects to surface.

It could have gone a lot worse with the exchange of power in South Africa, look at Zimbabwe, Mandelas insistence on reconciliation rather than revenge helped to take the edge off a dangerous situation.
Sure, he was labelled a terrorist, a criminal, but so was Jesus, so was Gandhi, and look at the change achieved by them for good and for worse.
Sure South Africa might not be the nation that Mandela wanted, but when does that ever happen?

RIP Nelson Mandela, you've taken your last long walk to freedom.

[CaptainHaplo]

Congrats, way to piss on a still warm body by a self appointed "Christian". What did the guy who was left to rot on a cross again said about forgiveness?

Sadly, I am not as perfect as my Savior is. Nor have I ever claimed to be. You can throw the "self appointed Christian" around all you want, but I know that I am a sinner and I admit my shortcomings when I come before my Lord in prayer. The fact that I - as a sinful human being - struggle to forgive where the Almighty does not - simply shows why I am grateful for the gift of salvation that is offered. For none of us are righteous in the eyes of the Lord.

See, my Lord doesn't see much of a difference between my screw ups and the choice of a terrorist. That's hard to swallow, but its still the case. I am as worthy of spiritual death as Hitler or Mandela. Thankfully - none of our eternal lives are in the hands of me - an imperfect being. The judgement of the Lord is perfect, and so I defer to it.

But admitting that I am not as merciful as my Savior is truth, and if you expect perfection from anyone - whether they claim to be Christian or not - they will disappoint you. If you want perfection - look to where it is, not to me.

But hey, that's too much knowledge to expect from a guy who is unable to even correctly quote the alleged number from the loony "Christian" website that states it. Well, my opinion doesn't count, as I am from a country which is undermined by the Satanists, just like the Vatican, eh? :rotfl2: (Taken from the same source which states the 156 number).

So you disagree with one source. Fine. But your choosing to try and discredit the whole body of facts using one snippet. Do you also disagree with the findings of the Human Rights Commission? Are they also a "loony" group? What about the Truth and Reconciliation Commision of South Africa, who provided the data? Are they also "loony"? Your avoiding documented facts because you can't discredit them and they don't fit your view. Thus you have to resort to name calling and attempts to make me personally look bad since you can't defeat the facts. A case of "if you don't like the message, try and discredit the messenger".

[gap]

Mandela was not exempt from mistakes, as he candidly admitted.

Yes, he might have ordered several guerrilla actions during which many civilians were killed. Does it mean that he was a terrorist? Are we to call the US pilots who dropped H bombs on Japan (and the ones who ordered those bombimgs) 'terrorists'? Were the late WWII allied bombings on several German cities 'terrorist attacks'? To my understanding each of those attacks made much more victims among the civilian population than ANC's guerrilla ever did; the razed cities were not strategical targets, and they were destroyed to the sole purpose to drop the enemy morale, to accelerate his surrender, or for simple retaliation, when the war was basically won already. The least that can be said, is that history is written by the winners.

Is Mandela liable for all the victims among Afrikaner farmers? I don't thik so. Let's remember that South Africa was a nation at war when those murders took place. Many of them were committed during spontaneous actions by embittered black Africans. He might have discouraged them (which he probably didn't initially), but how many revolutions do you know which happened without loss of blood? Weren't the French Revolution and its immediate aftermaths (which set the basis for our 'Western democracies'), one of the most freightening episodes of the European history? The ones who spread hatread are paid back with the same coin, soon or later. There often are innocent victims in between, and this is just hideous.

Yes, the anti-Apartheid campaign made much more victims among activists and supporters of rival black parties than it did against the 'white enemy'. As already said by someone else, this does demonstrate nothing. Have you ever heard of civil wars?

Yes, at some point Mandela's ideology was influenced by Marxism, but I don't see how this can be a blame. Does this mere fact turn him into a Stalin, ipso facto? Is there someone who still believes that all the communists are children-eaters? :haha:


Rest in peace, Madiba. I wish we had more leaders showing your intellectual honesty and your unbiased love for their People and Nation. :salute:

[Tribesman]

So you disagree with one source. Fine. But your choosing to try and discredit the whole body of facts using one snippet. Do you also disagree with the findings of the Human Rights Commission? Are they also a "loony" group? What about the Truth and Reconciliation Commision of South Africa, who provided the data? Are they also "loony"? Your avoiding documented facts because you can't discredit them and they don't fit your view. Thus you have to resort to name calling and attempts to make me personally look bad since you can't defeat the facts. A case of "if you don't like the message, try and discredit the messenger".
Shoot the message and the messenger where appropriate, you have already shown with your nonsense that you are not using those sources you mention.
Anyone with an ounce of sense would have gone nowhere near the crazy loons you used as a source, unless of course he shared their message.

[August]

Necklacing is the practice of summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. The victim may take up to 20 minutes to die, suffering severe burns in the process.

The practice became a common method of lynching among black South Africans during disturbances in South Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. The first recorded instance took place in Uitenhage on 23 March 1985 when black African National Congress (ANC) supporters killed a black councillor who was accused of being a White collaborator.[1]
Necklacing "sentences" were sometimes handed down against alleged criminals by "people's courts" established in black townships as a means of enforcing their own judicial system. Necklacing was also used by the black community to punish members of the black community who were perceived as collaborators with the apartheid government. These included black policemen, town councilors and others, as well as their relatives and associates. The practice was often carried out in the name of the ANC. Winnie Mandela, then-wife of the imprisoned Nelson Mandela and a senior member of the ANC, even made statements that endorsed its use.[2] The ANC officially condemned the practice.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

[Tribesman]

Nice link august the relevant part is from Haplos "source" which is not his source.
so the ANC condemned "necklacing" then?
Damn, so much for that then.
Your link also leads to the US congress report if you want a local(to you) take on it all.
or you could go to the T&R source ,which Haplo didn't read, and work your way through section 6 of the first ANC report.

Plenty of interesting stuff in those sources, several that are worth mentioning considering the nonsense some people have been writing using their "very racist white supremacist " sources.
Apparently it found that the Apartheid regime in itself constitutes a crime against humanity....and the war against that regime is a lawful and just cause.:hmmm:
You really think people would check their sources before they claim their initial nonsense is backed by fact from legitimate sources.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

If Mandela was white he would be a hero to you, depite his tactics.


Maybe he was sick of Europeans trying to tell South Africa what to do...


No one critisizes America for breaking away from Britain, I see his movement as the same thing, a fight for freedom.

I am sure his tactics were bad, but WHAT EFFING RIGHT DOES EUROPE (yes Europe , you all started this imperialistic crap, and have a hard time letting it go) HAVE TO INFLUENCE A SOVERIEGN NATION?

Why does the Boer oppression endear so many outside of S Africa so much., mad you lost the territory? You lost the 13 colonies too, come take those back tough colonist Euro guys?


Leave them alone! For real, what interest is there for you besides a 200 year old imperialistic pissing contest.

(EDIT: So many people who minimize what Mandela did, it pisses me off. sorry.)Ahh... nice! Is that widest paint brush you found? All Europeans are responsible of colonial powers' mess? Sweet! :nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

All Europeans are responsible of colonial powers' mess? Sweet! :nope:

It was Bush's fault as well.

[CaptainHaplo]

It was Bush's fault as well.

Bush wasn't European? :rotfl2:

[Bubblehead1980]

Purposely targeting civilians/non combatants is what, when you think about it, defines an actual terrorist from a freedom fighter etc.Tribes, by using "No taxation without representation" as a way to say the patriots who fought the American Revolution were terrrorists like Mandela once was, is just an inaccurate and invalid comparison.

Mandela was an actual terrorist at one point, he served nearly 30 years of hard labor for his crimes and did change, he saw the real route to change was not through terrorism, but through a peaceful political process.Killing innocent people on purpose accomplishes nothing and takes away the legitimacy of your often legitimate arguments against the state. Of course the dark side of Mandela's earlier life gets pushed under the rug but overall he was a great man who ended an ugly chapter in history through the proper means.

[AVGWarhawk]

Bush wasn't European? :rotfl2:

Never stated he was. :03: But these days it is always Bush's fault.

[Sailor Steve]

Which was, as far as you mean slavery, a side-effect, and probably not really the intention, some letter quotes from Lincoln leave little doubt that the slaves was not that much a point of interest for him. The real intention was that Northern states wanted to socialize the debts they had accumulat, and demanded the southern states to pay for them. Which the South obviously did not like that much, and why should they - at that time it was no one-national union with a centralised one-governmet-fits-all. Why should the one who managed economy better, pay for the debts resulting from the other who wasted more than he could afford? there is a reason why the Southern economy and finance system was annihilated so mercilessly by the North. It was to destroy any possible basis for autonomy and to make sure the South could never afford to live independant from the North again.
This leaves me with a couple of problems.

Problem 1: I can show equal documentation which would prove that nothing in the above post is true, but I can't do it here. Which leads to...

Problem 2: I realize that Soopaman2 referred to the American Civil War first, but his post was about collateral damage. Yours was about causes which, as I have pointed out many times before, are a major side-tracking of the thread. This is especially true for me, because I want to have that discussion but can't and won't do it here. If you want to continue it please start a new thread, or go back to one of the several Civil War threads. If not, I'll drop it after this.

[Tribesman]

@bubbles

Purposely targeting civilians/non combatants is what, when you think about it, defines an actual terrorist from a freedom fighter etc.Tribes, by using "No taxation without representation" as a way to say the patriots who fought the American Revolution were terrrorists like Mandela once was, is just an inaccurate and invalid comparison.
Not at all, if you read the inquiry Haplo didn't read but made claims about then you get the answer.
The comparison is valid unless you are saying those Colonials who rebelled were wrong.

Mandela was an actual terrorist at one point, he served nearly 30 years of hard labor for his crimes and did change Can you name any countries which didn't condemn the show trial?
You are correct that he did change though.

he saw the real route to change was not through terrorism, but through a peaceful political process. Unfortunately the real route is usually a combination of the two.

Killing innocent people on purpose accomplishes nothing and takes away the legitimacy of your often legitimate arguments against the state. Please read the Truth Commissions report. The relevant ANC document is only just over 200 pages.
As I said earlier section 6 is the most relevant but it is really worth reading the whole thing, in fact it is worth reading all the findings on all the factions.
Two of the other sections which really stand out are those on the States policy of deliberately targeting innocent civilians, and the States black flag operations deliberately murdering innocent civilians and claiming it was "terrorists" doing the murders.

Of course the dark side of Mandela's earlier life gets pushed under the rug but overall he was a great man who ended an ugly chapter in history through the proper means. I disagree, nothing was pushed under the rug, he was very open about it. The only people who try to push it under the rug are those who know little about it, and in fairness if they know little about it then there opinions on it don't really carry any weight.

[Aktungbby]

filled with a flammable fuel and then lit on fire as a means of execution "heroism" or "fighting for freedom" - then there just is no reasoning with you.Also known as a 'Kentucky"

This leaves me with a couple of problems.
I'll drop it after this.Many thanks for your timely gravitas! Now back to Foster's, Lone Star, and Hamm's so Privateer can kick my ass as promised inasmuch as this thread become boering as well as unnecessarily contentious.

However Martin Luther King said it best and I cannot believe that it would have escaped Mandela's notice: "He who accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Apartheid, along with much of the murderous, enslaving, dehumanizing colonialism of three centuries on the 'dark continent' WAS evil. And based on race and or tribalism, markedly so, as in Rawanda and the (Belgian)Congo, to this day. Mandela saw the evil, refused to accept it and did not cooperate with it. He studied evil's war manual and used enough of it to defeat it till no longer needing the tools of it. All government is bad; the trick is to live where it is least worst...and in Africa today that is a tough call; Mandela made South Africa the least worst call at present...

[BossMark]

Nice to see Man utd fans observe a 90 minute silence for Nelson Mandela.

[vanjast]

Having lived through both eras in ZA, and still live here, this link gives a very accurate description - http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/15888-saint-mandela-not-so-fast

I take my judgement from 1994, when ZA had so much promise, and this is my conclusion.. short and sweet. Mandela, Mbeki, Zuma and the ANC are complete failures.. actually nothing short of disastrous.

You lot must remember that a lot of 'smoke and mirrors' at at play here, and has been for a long time. Your political leaders, rock stars and other herds of cattle are playing the same game with you with this funeral ! Think for yourself and see through the nonsense.

I don't know where anyone here was taught to hate black people.. we were taught to hate the ANC.. a then communist (still is) terrorist organisation, so that we'd be ready for war in the bush during conscription time. Remember the ANC consisted of white people too :03: Another thing you don't hear about is that, although we were segregated (separated) a lot of black and white grew up together in this country - there was not complete separateness that is often depicted in the anti-apartheid videos. If you want to know how apartheid really ended.. look up the United Party (Helen Suzman, Colin Eglin) Nationalist Party (FW de Klerk, The Referendum)... yup a lot of white people involved there - Have Nelson and the ANC told you that ?? :arrgh!: or do they continue to bleat about apartheid, some 20 years later, to cover up for their failures. BS can only go so far.

After the funeral it's going to be 'fun' here.. and it's already started...

[Tribesman]

Vanjast, I am afraid that piece uses many of the same sources as earlier.
While I agree with most of your post, that article contains too much nonsense from extremist white supremacists in SA and itself is published by one of those rather crazy groups that believe everything is a global jewish conspiracy.

One part of your post is off though.
Have Nelson and the ANC told you that ??
Mandela was very open and honest about that, it is what sets him apart from all the other two bit revolutionaries who have existed in all the other nations round the world.

[vanjast]

In fact, it's all true.. whether it comes from white supremacists or not. I must say they've done a very good job at exposing this lot - done their research well!
Unless you live here you wouldn't know. :03:
Mandela and the ANC haven't been honest about a lot of things.. and we can see that here as we know exactly where it comes from and what the purposes are. Smoke and Mirrors as I've mentioned...

The world is currently operating on 'herd mentality' with regard to this person. So much hype, that it's almost impossible to admit that they've really stuffed it up. Time will tell.
:arrgh!:

[Catfish]

Never stated he was. :03: But these days it is always Bush's fault.

No, now it is all Obama's fault. :03:


But i give five Botha points to Cpt. Haplo.

(comes from my students days, where we used to give such points for people supporting repression, apartheid, and generally believing in white supremacy)

[Tribesman]

In fact, it's all true.. whether it comes from white supremacists or not. I must say they've done a very good job at exposing this lot - done their research well!


Would you like me to go through it with you and pick out all the falsehoods, or would you prefer just doing the most ridiculous lies it contains?

Unless you live here you wouldn't know. :03:

Isn't that an American thing?:haha:

Mandela and the ANC haven't been honest about a lot of things.. and we can see that here as we know exactly where it comes from and what the purposes are. Smoke and Mirrors as I've mentioned...

You are lumping several things together to make it seem true on the surface, that isn't how it works.

The world is currently operating on 'herd mentality' with regard to this person. So much hype, that it's almost impossible to admit that they've really stuffed it up.
Is it? that's such a huge generalisation that you know it simply cannot be true.
Much like several pieces in that article.

[vanjast]

Would you like me to go through it with you and pick out all the falsehoods, or would you prefer just doing the most ridiculous lies it contains?

We'll do this in a gentlemanly manner - Go ahead... and I'll 'repick'.
Unless you live(d) in ZA, you might find yourself been fed with, and believing other falsehoods.

Mandela and the ANC are one and the same.. He is/was their 'leader' and used so, up till his death. He might have retired from politics, but he was never 'far' from the ANC top brass.

I realise not the whole world is the 'herd', but the herd is still there - it was a generalisation, yes.

An interesting read.. going in the same direction: http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2013/12/09/ultimate-test-of-mandelas-legacy-is-a-vote-against-the-anc

[Tribesman]

We'll do this in a gentlemanly manner - Go ahead... and I'll 'repick'.
Unless you live(d) in ZA, you might find yourself been fed with, and believing other falsehoods.

Mandela and the ANC are one and the same.. He is/was their 'leader' and used so, up till his death. He might have retired from politics, but he was never 'far' from the ANC top brass.



:D
Right lets start with someone that global jewish conspiracy piece describes as moderate.
In regards the homelands, which of them by far consistently had the greatest number of gross violations of human rights?

In the period covered by the Truth commission, which group during the 1960-1994 timeframe topped the chart for those gross violations of human rights?
Was it the SAP, SADF, all the revolutionary groups combined....or the group led by Mr. Moderate?

Who requested that the apartheid government paid the legal fees for defending any of his parties members that were caught doing these acts yet were unable to escape a prosecution, since paying the fees from the party funds could result in bad publicity both locally and in the international arena if it became public knowledge?
Who also requested that the government which was guilty of crimes against humanity destroy all its paperwork in relation to their arrangements?

Can you describe the use of limpet mines shipped from Namibia for "self defence"?

Would you like to go further on the wide range of evidence supplied by the former regime about Mr. Moderate and his party or would you like to pick another category?
The Lithuanian Jew maybe, or necklacing, treatment of informers perhaps, contact with the outside world while a prisoner should be a funny one.
Take your pick ...or pick a better source next time:rotfl2:

I realise not the whole world is the 'herd', but the herd is still there - it was a generalisation, yes.
Generalisations rarely work, when they are aiming to deal with a specific then they are almost certainly guaranteed to fail.

An interesting read.. going in the same direction: An interesting read, and absolutely nothing even remotely like that earlier conspiracy piece.
Should I point out that it contradicts the line you wrote about "one and the same"?

[vanjast]

Did you see or hear any of the ANC attrocities at the Truth Commision. The ANC at the time, led by yours truly ?
I bet he would want forgiveness for the apartheid culprits (what a nice guy)... and quietly slip the ANC culprit's offenses under the carpet. Nelson (ANC) didn't tell you about that.

Which party in ZA in 2012 is quoted as topping all apartheid atrocities in one single event ? Who is their leader, iconic or otherwise ?
Not a word from within the 'party' about this event ??? Yet everyone else went ballistic.

You're very naive to think that gang bosses don't operate from within prison walls!

Next point!

Don't make excuses for one side atrocities and then pin the other side as the bad guys - they both were bad and wrong.
Remain focussed - the point is NM and his party - They are not the goodie two shoes that the herd make them out to be.
Post '94, NM and the ANC have been even more wrong... !!

[vanjast]

Should I point out that it contradicts the line you wrote about "one and the same"?You didn't read that piece, did you ? :D

It is a difficult question to ask, so intricately has the ANC associated itself with Mandela. To answer it, one must separate his principles from his party’s politics, for freedom and the ideals that define it are universal. If Mandela belongs to all of us, so does what he stood for. And that is a mirror even the ANC must look into. It is unfortunate that it should have to be asked of the ANC, but the most important questions are often the hardest and that is no reason to shy away from it or close our collective mind to its importance.NM hasn't separated himself from the ANC and never did - if he did he never told us. So for all his so called forgiveness he 'supported' an ANC that has resorted to racist and sexist policies.. and never once was there any criticism of these policies - policies that are equivalent the the apartheid gov.. and it's getting 'better' - and the world supports this type of thing. Great move on world hypocrisy !!

You might take from this that the ANC used him.. they did, and by the same token he used them.. don't forget that :-)

[vanjast]

Does this remind you of the apartheid era... strangely familiar - I hope so as it's happening again - what are you going to say about this, this time ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O56d-xd8AuM

[Oberon]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/George-Costanza-Eating-Popcorn.gif

[vanjast]

No need to panic :arrgh!:.. I'm done, made my point. :03:

[Tribesman]

Did you see or hear any of the ANC attrocities at the Truth Commision. Yes.
In case you missed it I already mentioned those to other people who were having problems with fact and suggested that they inform themselves.

I bet he would want forgiveness for the apartheid culprits (what a nice guy)... and quietly slip the ANC culprit's offenses under the carpet. Nelson (ANC) didn't tell you about that.
Are you dumb?
Can you tell me who endorsed in its entirety that report you mention but appear not to have read?

Which party in ZA in 2012 is quoted as topping all apartheid atrocities in one single event ? Who is their leader, iconic or otherwise ?
Not a word from within the 'party' about this event ??? Yet everyone else went ballistic.

Now then young man, please try and make sense, you are trying to show that the piece you linked to from the crazy people who think everything is a global jewish conspiracy does not contain lots of lies.
Besides which your maths is way out:yep:

You're very naive to think that gang bosses don't operate from within prison walls!
You live just across the water from the island prison, can you explain how that communication worked over the years
One letter and one visitor every six months for 18 years:hmmm:
Hold on let me guess, the closely vetted workers in the one party regimes high security prison for political prisoners were really secret KGB generals and probably jewish:rotfl2:

Next point!
I think you have to make a point before you say that.

Don't make excuses for one side atrocities and then pin the other side as the bad guys - they both were bad and wrong.
Remain focussed - the point is NM and his party - They are not the goodie two shoes that the herd make them out to be.
Post '94, NM and the ANC have been even more wrong... !! errrrrrr....you make no sense
Remain focused, you said everything in that piece of rubbish you linked to was true.

You didn't read that piece, did you ? :D
If I didn't read it how could I know that it is nothing like the earlier piece you posted?
I am getting the feeling that you didn't read the earlier piece which you insist is entirely true.
After all it contains so many absolute howlers no one could insist
it was true if they had read it
As to your quote from the secomd article, I have to ask. How is your grasp of English?


NM hasn't separated himself from the ANC and never did - if he did he never told us. So for all his so called forgiveness he 'supported' an ANC that has resorted to racist and sexist policies.. and never once was there any criticism of these policies - policies that are equivalent the the apartheid gov.. and it's getting 'better' - and the world supports this type of thing. Great move on world hypocrisy !!

You appear completely clueless, I get the distinct impression that you know practically nothing about matters on which you speak.
So much for local expertise


No need to panic :arrgh!:.. I'm done, made my point. :03: Your point being that you linked to a bunch of lies from people who are so crazy they make McCarthy look sane and insisted the obvious lies were true.
Great point you made
:rotfl2:

[vanjast]

Tribesman.. Tribesman.. Tribesman.. Unless you live here and have lived here for the past 30-50 years.. you'll never know or understand how this place or its people 'work'.

A lot of overseas people think it's like Europe, USA.. etc... dream on!!
:haha:

[Tribesman]

Tribesman.. Tribesman.. Tribesman.. Unless you live here and have lived here for the past 30-50 years.. you'll never know or understand how this place or its people 'work'.


In latest news the price of Stilton continues to fall while Wenslydale rises.....
so what has that got to do with your claim about the ludicrous article being all true or are you just discussing the price of cheese since your claims went south?

A lot of overseas people think it's like Europe, USA.. etc... dream on!!
:haha:
Have those people you talk about never looked at a map?

[vanjast]

So.. do you live in South Africa or not.. can you explcitly claim inner knowledge of NM, the ANC, The Nats, PW botha.. FW De Klerk...etc ?

When you can, tell me.. and I might actually believe that that webpage you hate so much might be bogus - but that isn't so, not from this side of the world.. sorry!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKiePbTcAfY

[Catfish]

... that webpage [...] might be bogus - but that isn't so, not from this side of the world..

I guess that exactly is the problem :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

So you are talking about the price of cheese, I thought so.
Goodbye young man, your effort is one of the most epic fails I have seen in a while.:rotfl2:

oh I see you edited.
So.......but that isn't so, not from this side of the world.. sorry!!
Your edit kinda makes your position even worse
facts are facts, facts do not change with location.
lies are lies, lies do not change with location.
I see you are still posting that silly video.
Could you as a local tell me what Prof. Kobus van Rooyen SC made of the complaints about it?

[vanjast]

Mandela's legacy.. like it or not !!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/south-africa-in-the-shadows/

I hope you're proud to support this type of thing :-)

[Tribesman]

I hope you're proud to support this type of thing :-)

I would never support front page mag, I don't know where you get your ideas from:har:

[vanjast]

You should see the movie, 'Last King of Scotland'.. brilliant movie.. very close to the 'bone'. Forest Whitaker is really believable.. You'll like it :up:

[Tribesman]

Has it got Mel Gibson in it?

[Jimbuna]

You should see the movie, 'Last King of Scotland'.. brilliant movie.. very close to the 'bone'. Forest Whitaker is really believable.. You'll like it :up:

I'll ask one question if Imay....

What has a movie about Amin got to do with Nelson Mandela?

[Catfish]

I'll ask one question if Imay....
What has a movie about Amin got to do with Nelson Mandela?

Both black. :smug:

[vanjast]

You simply don't understand africa... see this as an education.

Idi Amin ...A good doccy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MlOp35mofQ

[vanjast]

This will blow you away.. :D
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/black-boer-defends-white-awb-1.480585

Just when you thought you knew all about Africa... This shocked me too

[vanjast]

Both black. :smug:
Actually Idi is blacker than Nelson. There is a difference you know, and it also determines a lot of things, which I won't bother with. Yup! Shades do seem to make a difference. :03: Come live in Africa - you'll learn.

[flostt]

guys.....just quit it......comparing mandela with idi amin...wtf....

next step mugabe ? ....and then the hutus against the tutsis in ruanda in 1994 ? ...seems a litte far fetched for me...

(although i have to agree that "last king of scotland" or "hotel ruanda" are great movies)

....bright future for africa with all these guys running around....i guess that's why this is really getting off-topic here..

IMO, without mandela south africa would already have been in a civil war or a third world country like zimbabwe or ruanda....

he was able to forgive after 27 years prison, achieved a truce with buthelezi (inkatha party) and therefore avoided more bloodshed....and formed some kind of democracy with a new, modern constitution...and that is something to be respected (even if he had his faults like all of us..)

the outcome of it all ?? future will tell....

[Tribesman]

What always confused me is South African penguins, are they bleck or white?

[Oberon]

What always confused me is South African penguins, are they bleck or white?

Black and Blue if the police got hold of them. :O:

[CaptainHaplo]

I am still waiting on someone to actually provide a documentable example of anything "good" the guy actually did.

He didn't write the constitution. He didn't end apartheid (he was in prison, remember?), he didn't renounce violence to gain power, and after the end of apartheid - crime and violence in the nation drastically increased. Yes - during his time as "president" as well. He and his wife invented "necklaciing". He personally signed off on the Church Street Bombing. He wrote a book on how to be a good communist - and then banked over $1.5 Million - proving that he was a fraud on top of it. Oh - and he wasn't in prison for 27 years - he served 9 years on "house arrest" in an upscale market district of Johannesburg - living in luxury while his own people suffered.

So what was the "good" he did again?

[Tribesman]

Black and Blue if the police got hold of them. :O:

Only if they was lucky, otherwise they might have their genitalia cut off then their flippers amputated with an oxy acetylene torch before being shot in the head...at which point they could miraculously walk into town where they would plant a bomb and accidently blow themselves up in an act of terrorism :hmmm:

But lets be positive, there are good things to say about the one party rule of the white supremacist state which existed since 1948.
It has been removed from the map and consigned to the dustbin of history:woot:

[Tribesman]

That's a real doozy from Haplo

Wow Mandela had a Tardis, its the only possible explanation for his 9 years luxury prison in Jo'burg.:O:
I never realised he signed his name as Oliver Tambo when they bombed the Air Force HQ.
And he invented necklacing, I hope he took out a patent in those 6 monthly letters.

When people write such obvious lies how can anyone take them seriously:nope:

[August]

I am still waiting on someone to actually provide a documentable example of anything "good" the guy actually did.

He didn't write the constitution. He didn't end apartheid (he was in prison, remember?), he didn't renounce violence to gain power, and after the end of apartheid - crime and violence in the nation drastically increased. Yes - during his time as "president" as well. He and his wife invented "necklaciing". He personally signed off on the Church Street Bombing. He wrote a book on how to be a good communist - and then banked over $1.5 Million - proving that he was a fraud on top of it. Oh - and he wasn't in prison for 27 years - he served 9 years on "house arrest" in an upscale market district of Johannesburg - living in luxury while his own people suffered.

So what was the "good" he did again?

Yeah what replaced apartheid doesn't seem much better does it.

[Father Goose]

Due to security concerns...I will not be attending Mandela's funeral.

Plus, I don't think my boat will make it there! :O:

[Cybermat47]

Plus, I don't think my boat will make it there! :O:

Which one? There are two in your sig.

[Jimbuna]

Both black. :smug:

And?

[Father Goose]

Which one? There are two in your sig.

Either one...it's not looking good. :help:

[vanjast]

Black and Blue if the police got hold of them. :O:

Very quick and sharp .. :haha:

[vanjast]

The basic problem is that the media (note, since '94) have been feeding the world with a diet of South African 'niceties and miracles', and a wondrous new democracy.. and people have lapped this up, patting themselves on the back, congratulating themselves for a job well done, 1000's of miles away.

Meanwhile...

Back at the ranch, the death toll rate has steadily mounted, until at it's peak about a 1000 were dying daily.. (Nah!!... this is absolute BS, can't be ??), and the leadership was twiddling it's thumbs and having champagne.
Now in that Ugandan doccy, 300 000 died over his reign of a number of years. In ZA that number died in 1 year and this went on for 5 years and is still happening, but the toll rate has been reduced - you think about that carefully !!

There was a big outcry when the US soldier toll rate reached a 1000 per year in Iraq/Afghanistan. What would the US people do if: (Let upscale proportionally, 300 million in the USA compared to 50 million in ZA), say 6000 people were dying daily directly due to government leadership and policies ? The lynch mobs would be out

And then I, some 1000's of miles away said BS, you're lying because I know what's going on in your country and know your leaders - I've seen it all on tele... :har: :har: :har:

[Oberon]

I don't think anyone is saying that ZA is some sort of Garden of Eden now that the ANC have taken over. In terms of corruption it's a mess, you've only got to look at the power supply situation whose chickens have come home to roost (we'll probably be in a similar situation in the UK within the decade) and there are certainly situations where abuses of human rights are taking place.
However, compared to what happened in Zimbabwe and Uganda after the change of power, ZA got off very lightly, it could have been a lot worse, with a lot of very angry segregated people looking for revenge.

[Tribesman]

And then I, some 1000's of miles away said BS, you're lying because I know what's going on in your country and know your leaders - I've seen it all on tele... :har: :har: :har:

Sorry to burst your Boer bubble, but you were said to be lying because you insisted the obvious lies you had linked to were all true.:yep:

So young man, why do you feel you have to lie?
You started out so well in your first post, the truth should have been entirely sufficient to make the point about the situation, instead you decided to be thoroughly dishonest.:down:

[Catfish]

And?

Following VanJast's [sic!] logic this is what they have in common, I cannot find much else.

[vanjast]

..it could have been a lot worse, with a lot of very angry segregated people looking for revenge.
Actually is wasn't like that at all. The majority were glad that the show was over. only two extremist groups were at each others throats for a while, AWB and it's supporting Conservative Party.. the ANC and it's armed wing (NM always being a member of this group). The media feasted on this. The voting majority naturally went the ANC as there was no other countywide 'party' for black people to vote for. This has all changed as the ANC (including NM) have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot - They probably have no toes left.

Tribesman.. as for your BOER... did you know the Irish fought along side the Boers during the Boer War, against the Brits. Do you also know that the Boers feed the population of Southern Africa, because every ANC farm has to date, failed. Did you know that then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) fed the whole African continent up to south of the Sahara... it now imports food.. and millions starve - What do you think UN food aid is all about. Do you know English translation for Boer, is Farmer.
Mandela at least got one thing right when he said ZA could not do without the white man, and pleaded for them not to leave, still they wisely left in their droves.

It's funny how you believe that those fact are all lies, when you have no tangible experience or evidence (for or against) of the facts presented. Your case would be weak in a law court.. the judge would shake his/her head in disbelief. Herd mentality to the extreme.. Well this is to be expected.

Just in... I wander what the Boers would say about this.. http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Mandela-mourners-fight-over-food-20131210
I wouldn't be too quick to point fingers..

[Sailor Steve]

young man
This seems to have become your pet phrase for anyone you want to put down. In some cases it's provably true, but are you sure everyone you use it on is younger than you?

[Tribesman]

Tribesman.. as for your BOER... did you know the Irish fought along side the Boers during the Boer War, against the Brits.
I take it you mean the second Boer war, the one( in theory anyway) about uitlanders rights in the boer territories.
I take it you mean the Irish among the foreign volunteers from many countries and not the Irish regiments of the British army.
No I know nothing about that, I live thousands of miles away you see.
Though as it happens a set of medals the missus has in the house has all the campaign medals and 7 bars from that war, but he was German serving with a Scottish regiment in the British army which is kinda complex if you want to go into nationalities in that conflict, which of course I know nothing about:woot:

Do you also know that the Boers feed the population of Southern Africa, because every ANC farm has to date, failed. No I didn't, I thought not all farmers were boers, silly me eh, must be that distance thing again.

Did you know that then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) fed the whole African continent up to south of the Sahara... it now imports food.. and millions starve Funny you should mention that, some of the wifes family were Rhodesian farmers before they moved to farm in South Africa, I wouldn't call them Boer though as they are Anglos, or should they be Indians or maybe Pakistanis as originally they were out in the Raj and stayed on in Pakistan for the bloodbath after partition.
Not of course that I would know anything about that as I live in Ireland which is a little place on off west coast of Europe, I am not sure if you are familiar with it as it is a long way away.

Do you know English translation for Boer, is Farmer.
Amazing you really are full of facts, now in regards to some of your earlier bull can you give the Xhosa translation of that word, if you would be so kind can you give the translation for "all" as well.

Mandela at least got one thing right when he said ZA could not do without the white man, and pleaded for them not to leave, still they wisely left in their droves.
Yep,unity through diversity isn't it.
A big drop in the immediate period after losing the war but an increase in white population ever since then.

It's funny how you believe that those fact are all lies, when you have no tangible experience or evidence (for or against) of the facts presented. :har::har::har::har:
Facts are facts and lies are lies, you simply ran off spewing nonsense when confronted.

Your case would be weak in a law court.. the judge would shake his/her head in disbelief. Is that why you were unable to counter anything that was put forward, Blimey vanjast, you fell at the first fence, and that wasn't even a big fence.
No sorry, that is wrong, you didn't fall at the first fence, you looked at it and ran off in the opposite direction.

Herd mentality to the extreme.. Well this is to be expected.
Your arguments are pathetic, your grasp of facts is to all intents and purposes non existent.
Herd mentality indeed:rotfl2:
Only someone with herd mentality would even consider making a statement like you did, you insisted that everything in that rubbish piece of propaganda was true, that is an exceptionally silly stand to take.:down:

[Sailor Steve]

Facts are facts and lies are lies, you simply ran off spewing nonsense when confronted.
The more I read this stuff the more it seems to me that while you're dismissing his "facts", you once again are presenting none of your own. You say the article he quotes is full of lies and errors, yet you haven't shown a single fact tp back this up.

Is that why you were unable to counter anything that was put forward, Blimey vanjast, you fell at the first fence, and that wasn't even a big fence.
No sorry, that is wrong, you didn't fall at the first fence, you looked at it and ran off in the opposite direction.
But you yourself have put forward exactly nothing. No arguments, just more insults. You attempt to tear him down by sheer insult and mockery. Please show some facts.

Your arguments are pathetic, your grasp of facts is to all intents and purposes non existent.
Herd mentality indeed:rotfl2:
Only someone with herd mentality would even consider making a statement like you did, you insisted that everything in that rubbish piece of propaganda was true, that is an exceptionally silly stand to take.:down:
Again, please show that one bit of your tirade has some factual basis.

[Jimbuna]

Beginning to grow weary of the old and the old :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

The more I read this stuff the more it seems to me that while you're dismissing his "facts", you once again are presenting none of your own. You say the article he quotes is full of lies and errors, yet you haven't shown a single fact tp back this up.



.
He ran from the first facts and never decided what he which to do next, all the facts about the "moderate" in the article are taken from the commission Haplo hasn't read.
All the lies in that John Birch article can be dealt with using only that set of documents, though for the video one I did suggest looking at the findings of Van Rooyen at the SABC.
I have again asked for the actual translation of those two contentious words in the video, but I think he knows the answer and is avoiding it.
What it is is no different from some Irishman singing about tans.

He said he was willing to go through it bit by bit, yet has refused to even attempt the first bit

But you yourself have put forward exactly nothing. No arguments, just more insults. You attempt to tear him down by sheer insult and mockery. Please show some facts.

Read it again. I was hoping he would go onto necklacing next as that is fascinating, whether you go on just the ANC section or go onto the whole separate section into burnings of which necklacing is just part.
But no he wouldn't even approach the simple stuff on Inkatha:nope:

Again, please show that one bit of your tirade has some factual basis Do you doubt any of its validity?
As I have said several times, read the T&R.
Some people have been asking repeatedly what makes Mandela great, what makes him different from all the other dickhead revolutionaries throughout history, what did he do that was good.....
that thing is it.:yep:
What would be nice is if some other countries and their leaders had the balls to do the same.

What also would be nice is if Haplo would back up his stuff, I couldn't believe it when he brought up Church Street.:rotfl2:
If you was arguing from his perspective you wouldn't want to go anywhere near that even if you was desperate. And you certainly wouldn't want to go anywhere near that T&R commission on it (which he obviously hasn't read).
But in truth it was expected, as "church street " does have that sort of kum ba yah fluffy bunny sort of tone which is why it gets thrown around so much from certain quarters, but if you really did want to talk about the bombing of the Nedbank building from that viewpoint you would get very quickly slapped into place by the Geneva conventions.:hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

He ran from the first facts and never decided what he which to do next, all the facts about the "moderate" in the article are taken from the commission Haplo hasn't read.
So again you make claims without actually showing what the claim is about. How do we know anything you're saying is true? It's your job to back up your argument with references. Otherwise it's just noise on your part.

All the lies in that John Birch article can be dealt with using only that set of documents, though for the video one I did suggest looking at the findings of Van Rooyen at the SABC.
But you didn't actually show those findings. If you're going to make a claim it's your job to back it up.

I have again asked for the actual translation of those two contentious words in the video, but I think he knows the answer and is avoiding it.
You say that about a lot of people. You never back it up with any proof.

What it is is no different from some Irishman singing about tans.
I have no idea what that means.

He said he was willing to go through it bit by bit, yet has refused to even attempt the first bit
And you have refused to rebut anything he has said, only take potshots.

Read it again. I was hoping he would go onto necklacing next as that is fascinating, whether you go on just the ANC section or go onto the whole separate section into burnings of which necklacing is just part.
But no he wouldn't even approach the simple stuff on Inkatha:nope:
You were hoping? If you can show him wrong, please do so. You haven't even approached anything either, so what's the difference between you and him?

Do you doubt any of its validity?
As I have said several times, read the T&R.
Any of what's validity? As I have said many many times, it's your job to physically show what you want to convey, not to challenge someone else to read it. The latter is a good thing, but if you're making an argument the burden of proof is on you. If you're not making an arguement then what exactly are you doing?

Some people have been asking repeatedly what makes Mandela great, what makes him different from all the other dickhead revolutionaries throughout history, what did he do that was good.....
that thing is it.:yep:
What would be nice is if some other countries and their leaders had the balls to do the same.
That's a good sentiment. Some people have been showing what they think he did that was good, and showing references to back up their arguments. Some are merely sniping.

What also would be nice is if Haplo would back up his stuff, I couldn't believe it when he brought up Church Street.:rotfl2:
Okay, I know nothing about that. You didn't do anything to enlighten anyone. You mocked his reference, but you didn't provide one of your own to prove him wrong. Why should anyone believe your side of this?

If you was arguing from his perspective you wouldn't want to go anywhere near that even if you was desperate. And you certainly wouldn't want to go anywhere near that T&R commission on it (which he obviously hasn't read).
Why? So far I only have your word for that. My point is that you haven't countered any of his arguments, you've merely mocked them. This doesn't make him look bad, and does make you look like a troll. If he's wrong you need to prove it, not just laugh about it.

But in truth it was expected, as "church street " does have that sort of kum ba yah fluffy bunny sort of tone which is why it gets thrown around so much from certain quarters, but if you really did want to talk about the bombing of the Nedbank building from that viewpoint you would get very quickly slapped into place by the Geneva conventions.:hmmm:
So do the slapping. Show the facts. Show the references. So far you've shown exactly nothing.

[Tribesman]

So again you make claims without actually showing what the claim is about. Thats simple, every thing in the article is "true".
Just answer these questions and see how it works out
after all the invitation was...We'll do this in a gentlemanly manner - Go ahead... and I'll 'repick'.

In regards the homelands, which of them by far consistently had the greatest number of gross violations of human rights?

In the period covered by the Truth commission, which group during the 1960-1994 timeframe topped the chart for those gross violations of human rights?
Was it the SAP, SADF, all the revolutionary groups combined....or the group led by Mr. Moderate?

Who requested that the apartheid government paid the legal fees for defending any of his parties members that were caught doing these acts yet were unable to escape a prosecution, since paying the fees from the party funds could result in bad publicity both locally and in the international arena if it became public knowledge?
Who also requested that the government which was guilty of crimes against humanity destroy all its paperwork in relation to their arrangements?

Now if all the answers lead to the same person and the area run by that person and the organisation run by that person can they be described as moderate?
Especially when you consider the "all the revolutionary groups combined" part. Plus of course it ties into the claim about the ANC killing all the blacks

Can you describe the use of limpet mines shipped from Namibia for "self defence"?

That's just a bonus to bring operation marion into the measure of how moderate mr. moderate is.

And you have refused to rebut anything he has said, only take potshots.
Excuse me, the invitation was to deal with the contents of the specific article.
what has he said about the article apart from "It is all true".
Since that point really there has just been a lot of "you are not a local" and no defence of the contents of the article.

So do the slapping. Show the facts. Show the references. So far you've shown exactly nothing. Oh that's easy, the first part hinges on the recognition of the ANC is a legal resistance movement engaged in a just war against a regime that by its very existence and practices constitutes a crime against humanity.
The next part hinges on the recognition of all the documents regarding official conduct of the war as being accordance with the laws of war as defined in the international treaties covering such matters.
The third part hinges in that operation (part of a specific set of operations approved in Lesotho against military/police headquarters, government offices and branches of the State apparatus) being carried out in accordance with the military rules set out in ANC policy documents which are in accordance with international law regarding warfare.
Verdict, if I may paraphrase the T&R commission, it shows that it is a bit of a bugger when you place strategic military assets in built up areas.

So Sailor how many links do you require?

[Sailor Steve]

Just answer these questions and see how it works out
Why? I don't have answers. If you make claims it's your job to provide the answers.

In regards the homelands, which of them by far consistently had the greatest number of gross violations of human rights?
I don't know. Why don't you show the facts that back your claims.

In the period covered by the Truth commission, which group during the 1960-1994 timeframe topped the chart for those gross violations of human rights?
Was it the SAP, SADF, all the revolutionary groups combined....or the group led by Mr. Moderate?
I don't know. Why don't you quote the facts that support your claims?

Who requested that the apartheid government paid the legal fees for defending any of his parties members that were caught doing these acts yet were unable to escape a prosecution, since paying the fees from the party funds could result in bad publicity both locally and in the international arena if it became public knowledge?
I don't know. Why don't you stop playing games and just quote your facts?

Who also requested that the government which was guilty of crimes against humanity destroy all its paperwork in relation to their arrangements?
I don't know. Why don't you conduct an honest debate instead of dancing around?

Now if all the answers lead to the same person and the area run by that person and the organisation run by that person can they be described as moderate?
Especially when you consider the "all the revolutionary groups combined" part. Plus of course it ties into the claim about the ANC killing all the blacks
You may well be right. The problem is you'd rather run in circles than discuss the matter openly.

Can you describe the use of limpet mines shipped from Namibia for "self defence"?
Should I even care? You still keep playing, and not quoting your sources or honestly showing where his are wrong. Your "questions" are all a game, claiming superiority but never being honest about it.

That's just a bonus to bring operation marion into the measure of how moderate mr. moderate is.
You still haven't shown a single thing.

Excuse me, the invitation was to deal with the contents of the specific article.
what has he said about the article apart from "It is all true".
Since that point really there has just been a lot of "you are not a local" and no defence of the contents of the article.

Oh that's easy...
So you do a lot more talking, but still fail to show anything.

So Sailor how many links do you require?
Just one would be more than you've ever given in the past, but a good policy is a link for every claim you make. That way you actually prove something to everybody, and not just to yourself.

[Tribesman]

Fill your boots Sailor.
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/hrvtrans/index.htm
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/1998/9808/s980807a.htm
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/hrvtrans/submit/caprivi.htm
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/index.htm#top
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/special/index.htm#lh
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/special/security/1securit.htm
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/Volume%202.pdf

[vanjast]

As I've said.. they were both bad, and we've yet to have a TRC about the ANC atrocities. Nelson (ANC) have never come forward with that - This is one case in point.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-130886.html (North Korea has nothing on us :-) )

Now why don't you tell me these are lies too.. While on the 'border' these reports were streaming in - it was common knowledge. But one can go to town Pre-94.

As I've said lets focus post 94 of our 'great leader' and his party, from which he never distanced himself from. We can start at the FNB stadium (10Dec2013)

What an embarrassment:
That food link: - People are starving. They were encouraged like dogs to come to the stadium to receive food. Effectively the ANC orchestrators were using them as rent-a-crowd. Mandela's ANC ?

Crowd booing at Zuma: A lot of people say it was disrespectful to mandela - maybe they don't respect him that much anymore, even less so his cell mate. I understand that the world still adores NM

The stadium emptied after Obama's speech: It looks like they wanted to see/hear Obama.. then that was it.

And the trump card:
Tutu calming the crowd explaining that the world was watching and they must behave - He looked like a fool.

Was the whole FNB thing a massive PR orchestration by the cANCer that went horribly wrong. A lot of people think so.
Then begs the question.. Why did it go wrong ?
The smoke has lifted and the mirrors have cracked :-) Will it make a difference.. probably not!

Some worldly perceptions:
Hope the world saw what morons they are,,,
It will be us, ie South Africans, not they http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif


Partly right, although one Aussie that sat watching with me made an interesting point, saying that if that was representative of the country then the whites might as well not exist anymore.

I've learnt to bite my tongue, people have the usual pre-digested ideas about race relations and the saintly, long suffering black fella, but it was interesting to see how people who were initially smiling about "the African way" slowly changed their tune. The debacle with speakers being cut off mid speech so that Ramaphosa could harangue the crowd was greeted with disbelief. The references to Comrade Nelson and loyal cadres didn't go unoticed either, nor did the fact that nearly 100 world leaders dropped what they were doing to rush across the world and attend, to be greeted with a stadium that had an embarrassing number of empty seats on display. As someone commented, if that were a big soccer match, a bit of rain wouldn't have kept the crowds away.

Showerhead isn't really on the radar here, so most people around me mistook the praise-singer for the buffoon himself. http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif, a really good look! I'm afraid my small sample of reactions to the event wasn't positive and one bloke quietly commented as he was leaving that he was beginning to understand why there are so many saffer accents to be heard around here.

A golden opportunity squandered.

[Sailor Steve]

Fill your boots Sailor.
It's a start, but there's a lot of material to go through. Am I supposed to read the whole thing, or are you supposed to give direct references to prove your points?

Does any of it prove that Mandela wasn't guilty of the things some are accusing him of? I don't see you making that argument, but what else is there? The ends justify the means? He was bad but they were worse?

I honestly have no idea on this. I just like to see an honest debate.

[vanjast]

I just like to see an honest debate.
Good idea...
Tribesman.. choose a weapon for your side ?:D

[CaptainHaplo]

It's a start, but there's a lot of material to go through. Am I supposed to read the whole thing, or are you supposed to give direct references to prove your points?

Actually - a quick perusal shows quite a bit. Its important to recall that Mandela headed the MK for the ANC.

On page 18 of the submission it is requested that acts carried out by cadres or supporters of our movement falling within the ambit of the TRC, ie acts perceived as gross human rights violations, "must, nevertheless, be treated within the context [of the just war of national liberation]." So here we have an admission by the ANC that their cadres (MK) acted in ways that would be defined as "gross human rights violations".

The ANC submission does not give detail about MK missions within the framework of the just war. So instead of giving detail, they tried to excuse gross human rights violations committed by the MK (headed by Mandela) as just due to the war for national liberation.

According to the ANC submission, attacks not in accordance with ANC policy became a trend in the late 80s (page 53). Some examples of such acts were illustrated in the submission. So of course the ANC - who funded MK - had no real control over their "just" acts of gross human rights violations.

Is it possible to provide more examples and evidence on "mistaken attacks" and more information on "false flag" necklaces and other attacks as outlined in pages 62-63? Oops - we screwed up and killed a few "good guys" too - sorry about that. Indiscriminant killings and false flag ops were the norm by MK troops at various times.

There are allegations of human rights abuses before 1984. For example, the amnesty international report "South Africa; Torture, ill-treatment and executions in African National Congress camps" More and more damning information about the ANC's actions....

All quotes above sourced from:
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/hrvtrans/submit/q_anc.htm

In the ANC's response, they did not even address many of the issues raised, instead ranting about the evil white regime that justified their actions. One particular thing they did answer was the "necklacing" issue - in which they basically claim that they never supported it and that it was the evil white regime that invented it and spread it amongst the populace. They also claim that the "black on black" violence was overblown - which the HRC demonstrated to be false.

For those interested in the bull excrement response - find it here:
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/hrvtrans/submit/anc2.htm

I find it highly ironic that the resident champion dodgeball player finally got enough nerve to post his sources - and then those sources prove the point of his opponents.

[August]

Some worldly perceptions:

Interesting. That is about the exact opposite of how the event was portrayed in the news here tonight. Packed stadium, cheering, happy crowds.

[Tribesman]

As I've said.. they were both bad, and we've yet to have a TRC about the ANC atrocities. Nelson (ANC) have never come forward with that

If they have not yet had them why are they in the links provided?

This is one case in point.

If that is a case in point then why does it contain the links to the TRC?


@Sailor Steve.
It's a start, but there's a lot of material to go through.
not as much as Nuremburg:03:
I already pointed out the most relevant sections a long time ago in this topic.
I gave you a lot more pointers on the other materials I used in the PM. I think I missed the Dolphin section dealing with the SAAF HQ bombing, the reference I believe is 2001-003 or possibly 0003.

Does any of it prove that Mandela wasn't guilty of the things some are accusing him of?
Depends on what they are accusing him of, if you take Haplos "signing off" concerning Dolphin you can see that isn't true, as I said earlier that was
someone else as Mandela didn't hold that job title wasn't on the committee or following sub committee....and funnily enough was at the time somewhat indisposed elsewhere, unless he was using that Tardis again

I don't see you making that argument
Why would I make that argument?

but what else is there? The ends justify the means? He was bad but they were worse?

As I said very early in the topic wars are nasty, civil wars are really nasty.
But lets explore one angle peddled. Killing the blacks, most of the population was black wasn't it, it would be a bloody miracle if most of the victims were not black(or should that be unbloody miracle).

Try it another way.

In the US war of independence most of the victims were colonial Americans, therefore The US was just killing Americans, and not fighting for its cause.

In the US war of independence most of the victims were citizens of the British Empire, therefore The British were just killing the British, and not fighting for its cause.

Pure nonsense isn't it, using an arguement like that is simply silly and at its base level is flatly dishonest.
Now go back and see how often that very angle has been put forward in this topic.

[Tribesman]

Wow Haplo can finally read, lets see him get to the bits he made claims about:rotfl2:
He should enjoy the chapters on Winnie Mandela she is one evil bitch, then again he won't really as it doesn't tie in with the claims he made which were false

[vanjast]

Interesting. That is about the exact opposite of how the event was portrayed in the news here tonight. Packed stadium, cheering, happy crowds.

I did say some perceptions.
The stadium was packed, but 'emptied' very quickly after Obama's speech.
I've worked in media.. They can be very deceptive in what they want you to see. :03:

[Father Goose]

Wow Haplo can finally read...

But Tribesman still cannot quote properly. And it's so easy! Too bad. :nope:

[vanjast]

and... http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/mandela-memorial-hecklers-rebuked-1.1620389

Note carefully what the party are saying...
“Okunye sizokubona mahambile (we’ll deal with our problems after the visitors have left),” Ramaphosa was quoted as saying. .. and this guy was considered a moderate, maybe MR Moderate !!
They shouldn't have been surprised with this as they sowed the seeds of discontent back in 94.
Where have they been for the past 20 years ?

They might be in for a very big surprise and this could turn into the equivalent of what happened in Libya, Egypt, and Syria. It's just waiting to happen.
:03:

[Sailor Steve]

I already pointed out the most relevant sections a long time ago in this topic.
I gave you a lot more pointers on the other materials I used in the PM. I think I missed the Dolphin section dealing with the SAAF HQ bombing, the reference I believe is 2001-003 or possibly 0003.
Pointers? If I'm debating someone I cite chapter and verse, with quotes, then give the link so they can see for themselves. Not giving a link at all until asked several times, the throwing out a bunch of links with the inference "Go look for it; it's in there somewhere", is cheap and rude to say the least.

Why would I make that argument?
Then what argument are you making? Is it about Mandela, or is it solely about Haplo? This is getting ever more confusing. What is your point?

As I said very early in the topic wars are nasty, civil wars are really nasty.
But lets explore one angle peddled. Killing the blacks, most of the population was black wasn't it, it would be a bloody miracle if most of the victims were not black(or should that be unbloody miracle).
So is your point that the fact that Mandela killed black folks in his war on the white masters doesn't necessarily make him the evil villain some are making him out to be? If so, why didn't you say so in the first place and argue from there? It would have caused less confusion and possibly less hostility.

[CaptainHaplo]

Then what argument are you making? Is it about Mandela, or is it solely about Haplo? This is getting ever more confusing.

I doubt its "solely" about me - but tribesboy has always had a need to follow me around and post after me. I think he has a complex. :rotfl2:So yea, that has to be a fair bit of it.....

What is your point?
Sadly, that is the problem. There rarely is a "point" other than he disagrees with the stance taken by others - using questions to distract from the point rather than deal with it. Its been a rather apparent pattern.

[Tribesman]

Pointers? If I'm debating someone I cite chapter and verse, with quotes, then give the link so they can see for themselves. Not giving a link at all until asked several times, the throwing out a bunch of links with the inference "Go look for it; it's in there somewhere", is cheap and rude to say the least.





.
I expect people to inform themselves before they enter. Especially if they are going to make rather "strong" claims which they say are backed by fact from sources they have never read.

Then what argument are you making? Is it about Mandela, or is it solely about Haplo? This is getting ever more confusing. What is your point? The argument is about accuracy, the point is about very obvious lies.
The individuals making those errors are irrelevant it is the errors themselves
If I may turn around one of your favourite lines
It is not how you write, it is what you write.

So is your point that the fact that Mandela killed black folks in his war on the white masters doesn't necessarily make him the evil villain some are making him out to be? Three points.
If something is wrong it is wrong no matter who did it.
People cannot condemn the actions of one side without condemning the same actions by all sides.
People cannot condemn actions which they have gone to great lengths to defend solely due to their view on the people doing the actions.

"informers" "spies" and "traitors" is a good example.
You should have noted many examples from all sides of extra judicial murders of people groups claimed were in those categories.
Rather nasty crimes, non existent or at best a very worthless excuse of a legal process before executions.
How many people on this forum have made posts calling for such murders of people they place in those categories?
Same with torture, how many people who wish to condemn acts of torture during that war have vehemently defended torture in other wars?
The main point of those points is about hypocrisy.

If so, why didn't you say so in the first place and argue from there? It would have caused less confusion and possibly less hostility If the review the topic I have said it several times.











I doubt its "solely" about me - but tribesboy has always had a need to follow me around and post after me. I think he has a complex. :rotfl2:So yea, that has to be a fair bit of it.....


Sadly, that is the problem. There rarely is a "point" other than he disagrees with the stance taken by others - using questions to distract from the point rather than deal with it. Its been a rather apparent pattern.
You are irrelevant to the matter, what people write in a topic is what is relevant.
Though I was rather amused at how willingly you jumped on the link for a "brief perusal" without stopping to modify your views in the light of facts which you should have been aware of already.
Not surprised but amused none the less.
Now I don't know how to break this to you, I hope I don't shock you too much with the revelation.
Nelson Mandela doesn't really have a Tardis:oops:

Let me assume for a moment that your brief perusal has got as far as militant groups, their command structure, management, offices , who held which office at which time and their roles and responsibilities.
I have already pointed out where you put the wrong person down as "signing off" on something.
Can you place Nelson Mandela in those lists?
Can you see why almost the entire thrust of your argument throughout the topic is completely false?

BTW 9 years in jo'burg was a real howler, how can you make such an obvious error?
Oh and one more thing, according to "reliable" sources, since Nelson Mandela apparently invented necklacing do you think he SADF/SAP should pay him royalties for using his invention?

[Jimbuna]

On a lighter note...what were the ANC thinking of?

Deaf viewers of Nelson Mandela's memorial service have complained that the official sign language interpreter was inept.

The Deaf Federation of South Africa told the BBC the man's signs were "arbitrary" and "did not make sense".

Wilma Newhoudt-Druchen, South Africa's first deaf female MP, tweeted that the interpreter was "signing rubbish".

She told the BBC the man was "employed by ANC head office or used by them" but didn't use South African sign language.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25330672

[CaptainHaplo]

The argument is about accuracy, the point is about very obvious lies. The individuals making those errors are irrelevant it is the errors themselves

I rarely respond directly to you Tribesman, but I am going to do so because you actually made some interesting points that - for once - deserve a response.

Three points.
If something is wrong it is wrong no matter who did it.
People cannot condemn the actions of one side without condemning the same actions by all sides.
People cannot condemn actions which they have gone to great lengths to defend solely due to their view on the people doing the actions. I actually agree with you on all three of these. However, 2 of the points have little to nothing to do with the ongoing "debate". I have not - nor have I seen anyone else - condemn actions on one side without doing so on both. If you have an example, provide it - otherwise its a baseless accusation that has no place in a reasonable discussion. No one has condemned actions simply based on "who" did them - while applying a different standard to others. If you feel that I or someone else has done so - show us the double standard. Otherwise, its again a useless claim without foundation.

"informers" "spies" and "traitors" is a good example.
You should have noted many examples from all sides of extra judicial murders of people groups claimed were in those categories.
Rather nasty crimes, non existent or at best a very worthless excuse of a legal process before executions. At no point have I stated that murders were only committed by the MK - and you know it. The issue is about Mandela - the founder and leader of the MK - and thus his level of culpability for their actions. There is an old saying that pointing at the mud on someone else's fins won't help you swim. I do not dispute that others also committed atrocities - but the actions of other groups is not the topic. What your trying to do is distract from the topic instead of defend your position - which is not backed up by facts.

How many people on this forum have made posts calling for such murders of people they place in those categories?
Same with torture, how many people who wish to condemn acts of torture during that war have vehemently defended torture in other wars? What you call murder, others call justice. What your trying to do is force your perspective of each term on others - instead of using the debate to demonstrate the "rightness" of your position. Your trying to bludgeon your point of view instead of convincing your audience with factual arguments.

The main point of those points is about hypocrisy. Well earlier you said the point was about people being in error. Now your saying your just out to point out what you perceive as other people's hypocrisy. First of all, perhaps if you would make up your mind and stay focused, it would be easier for others to actually understand your "point".
Second - you said it wasn't about the people - but then your out to prove those same people are "hypocrits". That shows that you have a personal stake in discrediting those people who disagree with you. That is simply sad.

You are irrelevant to the matter, what people write in a topic is what is relevant. Now your back to "its not about the people". You can't even make up your mind. Your own words demonstrate that it is - at least in part - about the "people". Further proof is based on your expansive history of following certain peoples posts (myself included) and contradicting them or trying to start an argument with them.

Though I was rather amused at how willingly you jumped on the link for a "brief perusal" without stopping to modify your views in the light of facts which you should have been aware of already. Actually I simply used a link off of yours - linking the same source site - to demonstrate your position was in error. It said nothing I didn't know - thus there was no need to modify my views. Why modify my views when the information proves my view as correct?

Not surprised but amused none the less. And attempting to be patronizing when your proven wrong isn't going to make you look better....

Now I don't know how to break this to you, I hope I don't shock you too much with the revelation.
Nelson Mandela doesn't really have a Tardis:oops: Not even sure what that is - so its an obviously irrelevant comment. I would guess its supposed to make my view seem stupid - but facts are on my side so I am not concerned.

Let me assume for a moment that your brief perusal has got as far as militant groups, their command structure, management, offices , who held which office at which time and their roles and responsibilities.
I have already pointed out where you put the wrong person down as "signing off" on something.
Can you place Nelson Mandela in those lists? No - the ANC response to the TRC's questions do not name Mandela - this much is true.

Can you see why almost the entire thrust of your argument throughout the topic is completely false? No - because what your doing is taking the ANC response as "gospel truth". However, to do that you have to place credibility in a group who already had responded that the "gross human rights violations" were "justified". A group who claimed it didn't use necklacing, but that the horrid practice was all the fault of the evil white regime.

In other words - just because they said it doesn't make it so. Your placing "truth" in the hands of those with the most reason to hide or modify truth so as to not bad - or allow their "hero" Mandela to be made to look bad. The facts of the time and the ANC's actions - specifically actions of the MK - demonstrate that their own statements are (at least at times) patently false. Thus the "source" foundation of your view is at the least - highly suspect.

As for 9 years - I did misread - it was Winnie that spent that long under house arrest. Nelson did 3 years on house arrest. (88-90)

http://www.mandelahouse.com/history.asp and
http://www.history.com/topics/nelson-mandela

The rest of your statement was simply gibberish that does not rate a dignified response.

IF perhaps you can learn to separate the issues you have with the "people" from the debate itself - and learn that when you have an alternative view you likely have different sources and should provide them to bolster your view - you will have made significant strides to being taken seriously.

[Father Goose]

Tribesman,
Thank you for quoting Steve in post 138 with "Originally posted by". It makes it so much easier to follow the thread. :up:

If I criticize you when you don't quote properly, I think I should commend you when you do. Thanks again!

[vanjast]

On a lighter note...what were the ANC thinking of?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25330672

Well.. that's just it, 'smoke and mirrors'. I don't know sign language, but seen enough on local tele to know that that person couldn't 'speak' properly:haha:
This is just one 'small' example how 'Yours Truly' and his cANCer have been pulling the wool over your eyes since 94.
Only this time they were stupid enough to do it on a 'live international stage'... this stupidity knows no limits.

Has anybody recorded the whole FNB stadium event - 'warts-n-all'. I cannot seem to find it anywhere on the net - I've only seen short clips of 'their greatness's ' and no warts.

Would censorship be at play here - We can't let you see the truth ?
:o

[Tribesman]

Tribesman,
Thank you for quoting Steve in post 138 with "Originally posted by". It makes it so much easier to follow the thread. :up:

If I criticize you when you don't quote properly, I think I should commend you when you do. Thanks again!

No need.
Sometimes I hit one button sometimes I hit the other.
Sometimes I hit one button then pull up some other quotes too.
Its just a matter of chance.

But look at it another way, its the words that are primary, the person is secondary and sometimes irrelevant as it may not matter who said them as the words used speak for themselves.

[Tribesman]

I actually agree with you on all three of these. However, 2 of the points have little to nothing to do with the ongoing "debate". I have not - nor have I seen anyone else - condemn actions on one side without doing so on both. If you have an example, provide it - otherwise its a baseless accusation that has no place in a reasonable discussion. No one has condemned actions simply based on "who" did them - while applying a different standard to others. If you feel that I or someone else has done so - show us the double standard. Otherwise, its again a useless claim without foundation.

Where would you like to start Iraq, Palestine/Israel, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Libya. Or even your civil war.

Would you like some details of examples from you, there are quite a lot.

At no point have I stated that murders were only committed by the MK - and you know it. The issue is about Mandela - the founder and leader of the MK - and thus his level of culpability for their actions. There is an old saying that pointing at the mud on someone else's fins won't help you swim. I do not dispute that others also committed atrocities - but the actions of other groups is not the topic. What your trying to do is distract from the topic instead of defend your position - which is not backed up by facts.

Agreed, but in 38 you attempt to muddy the waters.
Plus of course if someone is a leader and has a level of culpability and you have to show that they were the leader and were culpable.
That's were facts come in, that's where you have to use a Tardis to magically move time.

What you call murder, others call justice. What your trying to do is force your perspective of each term on others - instead of using the debate to demonstrate the "rightness" of your position. Your trying to bludgeon your point of view instead of convincing your audience with factual arguments.


Murder is a legal definition regarding certain classes of homicide, in regards to justice many of these are classed as extra judicial.
Nothing to do with perspective, it is to do with fact.

Well earlier you said the point was about people being in error. Now your saying your just out to point out what you perceive as other people's hypocrisy. First of all, perhaps if you would make up your mind and stay focused, it would be easier for others to actually understand your "point".
Second - you said it wasn't about the people - but then your out to prove those same people are "hypocrits". That shows that you have a personal stake in discrediting those people who disagree with you. That is simply sad.

Its about words, the "people" only comes into play in tying their words together.

Now your back to "its not about the people". You can't even make up your mind. Your own words demonstrate that it is - at least in part - about the "people". Further proof is based on your expansive history of following certain peoples posts (myself included) and contradicting them or trying to start an argument with them.
see above.

Actually I simply used a link off of yours - linking the same source site - to demonstrate your position was in error. It said nothing I didn't know - thus there was no need to modify my views. Why modify my views when the information proves my view as correct?

Demonstrably false, I do suggest you work your way through the documents, they are very extensive and you are still making the same errors and not addressing most of your earlier errors.

Not even sure what that is - so its an obviously irrelevant comment. I would guess its supposed to make my view seem stupid - but facts are on my side so I am not concerned.

It is a fictional machine which allows people to travel through time and space, in order to support "facts" you are using it to put people in places at times where they could not have been under any real world situation.

No - the ANC response to the TRC's questions do not name Mandela - this much is true.

Indeed.
Rather important that, if you want to make something of his role and culpability.

No - because what your doing is taking the ANC response as "gospel truth". However, to do that you have to place credibility in a group who already had responded that the "gross human rights violations" were "justified". A group who claimed it didn't use necklacing, but that the horrid practice was all the fault of the evil white regime.

Excuse me, where?
I am afraid you will have to show where I reject the T&R findings on the ANC responses, plus of course you will have to show where mandela accepted those findings in their entirety apart from the nasty stuff they said about the ANC.
As for that claim you make in the last sentence, you should know that isn't true, you do have access to the documentation.
Personally I find many of the burnings to be far worse than the necklacing

In other words - just because they said it doesn't make it so. Your placing "truth" in the hands of those with the most reason to hide or modify truth so as to not bad - or allow their "hero" Mandela to be made to look bad.
Please read some more of the documentation.

The facts of the time and the ANC's actions - specifically actions of the MK - demonstrate that their own statements are (at least at times) patently false. Thus the "source" foundation of your view is at the least - highly suspect.

Yes, and you should focus on those times and the T&C findings on those issues.
More importantly you need to link times to the person, which is going to be a hell of a struggle without a tardis.

[Wolferz]

Hoo doggies!

I ran out of popcorn on page 3.

It was interesting to watch this armchair trial of Nelson Mandela' deeds while he was a living man. But, now he's dead and there is only one authority that can judge him and his deeds and it ain't us.

A load of discussion regarding man's inhumanity to his fellow men and most of it is a healthy wagon load of Bovine scatterings in my humble opinion.
Who's up for the next pointless cross examination? Approach the bench.:arrgh!:

[vanjast]

It's all about putting this Mandela 'Saintlyhood' into perspective.
He was like any other person caught up in the circumstances, and no better than any of them.

The disturbing thing is that the media has run amok, feeding the rest of the world with a selected diet... of niceties, and even more disturbing is that most in the world believe this as 'gospel'.

Only occasionally you get a reporter brave enough to show the real side of the 'demi-gods'.. and it aint pretty!!

[Tribesman]

It's all about putting this Mandela 'Saintlyhood' into perspective.
He was like any other person caught up in the circumstances, and no better than any of them.

The disturbing thing is that the media has run amok, feeding the rest of the world with a selected diet... of niceties, and even more disturbing is that most in the world believe this as 'gospel'.

Only occasionally you get a reporter brave enough to show the real side of the 'demi-gods'.. and it aint pretty!!
Has it though?
I find no shortage of media articles dealing with it in a balanced manner.
BTW have you read the latest on the signer?
Apparently he has voices in his head:rotfl2:

Oh and one more thing Vanjast. The reason why I found your bit about the Transvaal brigades so amusing.
MacBrides history is pretty standard fare in the Irish education system, including his activities in the 2nd Boer war.

[AVGWarhawk]

The disturbing thing is that the media has run amok, feeding the rest of the world with a selected diet... of niceties, and even more disturbing is that most in the world believe this as 'gospel'.



The guy conducting sign language said something completely different. :haha::har:

[Sailor Steve]

But look at it another way, its the words that are primary, the person is secondary and sometimes irrelevant as it may not matter who said them as the words used speak for themselves.
That may be true, but it's frustrating to see an uncredited quote and find yourself going back through the thread trying to find out who said it.

But, now he's dead and there is only one authority that can judge him and his deeds and it ain't us.
True, but none of us had the power to judge him when he was alive. All we're judging here is how we and those we talk to percieve him. People don't like seeing others talk about someone in a manner inconsistent with their own perceptions of that person. If you say someone was a saint and I believe I have evidence that shows he was very much the opposite, I consider it my duty to try to correct or balance your stated perception, and vice versa. Otherwise all we would ever see is "Mandela's dead." "Okay, thanks, bye." <Thread closed>

[Dan D]

....
It could have gone a lot worse with the exchange of power in South Africa, look at Zimbabwe, Mandelas insistence on reconciliation rather than revenge helped to take the edge off a dangerous situation.
Sure, he was labelled a terrorist, a criminal, but so was Jesus, so was Gandhi, and look at the change achieved by them for good and for worse.
Sure South Africa might not be the nation that Mandela wanted, but when does that ever happen?

RIP Nelson Mandela, you've taken your last long walk to freedom.

:yeah:

Until 2008 the US administration treated Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. May be that is why parts of Conservative America still dispute his legacy. Under Bush in 2008, when the US administration started its drone killing program (http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-so-far-about-drone-strikes), Mandela was taken off the US terrorism watch list: Mandela off US terrorism watch list (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/01/mandela.watch/) .

Imagine that, Mandela accidently killed by a drone attack because he was still on the list. You get far more easily on the list than off the list.

After being relased from prison in 1990 he negotiated with the South African President Frederik de Klerk about a peaceful settlement of the racial tensions. They were jointly awarded the Novel Peace Prize 1993 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1993/)"for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa" .

In the same year Mandela became President of South Africa.

In 1952, Mandela who was an attorney had established the first black owned and operated law firm in South Africa which turned into a busy practice because: " … it was a crime to walk through a Whites Only door, a crime to ride a Whites Only bus, a crime to use a Whites Only drinking fountain, a crime to walk on a Whites Only beach, a crime to be on the street after 11pm, a crime not to have a pass book and a crime to have the wrong signature in that book, a crime to be unemployed and a crime to be employed in the wrong place, a crime to live in certain places and a crime to have no place to live“
http://www.golegal.co.za/media-entertainment/mandela-and-tambo-attorneys.

A very impressive biography!

[CaptainHaplo]

:yeah:

Until 2008 the US administration treated Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. May be that is why parts of Conservative America still dispute his legacy. Under Bush in 2008, when the US administration started its drone killing program (http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-we-know-so-far-about-drone-strikes), Mandela was taken off the US terrorism watch list: Mandela off US terrorism watch list (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/07/01/mandela.watch/) .

Oh - so its only the "conservatives" huh? In 1988 the State department declared the ANC a terrorist organization. Mandela was removed from the watch list in 2008. 20 years of US governance - including 8 years by Bill Clinton - the "other first black president". If it was all about the evil conservatives, what do you call Bill Clinton? Most people would not consider him a "beacon of conservatism" by any stretch of the imagination.
Also note that every President from Carter onward until the end of Apartheid used sanctions against SA because of the practice.

Imagine that, Mandela accidently killed by a drone attack because he was still on the list. You get far more easily on the list than off the list.

I got a better idea - imagine you were "accidentally" killed in one of those 156 acts of public violence that Mandela admitted to.....

After being relased from prison in 1990 he negotiated with the South African President Frederik de Klerk about a peaceful settlement of the racial tensions. They were jointly awarded the Novel Peace Prize 1993 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1993/)"for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa" .

In the same year Mandela became President of South Africa.

To give credit where it is due - Mandela did in fact work closely with de Klerk - both before and after his election (de Klerk was his VP if memory serves) - to stabilize the country and keep peace. I do not say everything he did was bad.

In 1952, Mandela who was an attorney had established the first black owned and operated law firm in South Africa which turned into a busy practice because: " … it was a crime to walk through a Whites Only door, a crime to ride a Whites Only bus, a crime to use a Whites Only drinking fountain, a crime to walk on a Whites Only beach, a crime to be on the street after 11pm, a crime not to have a pass book and a crime to have the wrong signature in that book, a crime to be unemployed and a crime to be employed in the wrong place, a crime to live in certain places and a crime to have no place to live“

No one is defending apartheid - it was a horrible system that needed to end. That does not excuse mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns - which is one of the charges Mandela admitted to.

I don't negate the good that Mandela did. I simply point out that he was no angel - but was in fact a terrorist with an awful lot of blood on his hands. Yes - he worked for peace in the end - peace on his terms - under his watch. Do you really think he wanted his legacy (after being a figurehead for unfair treatment) to be one of racial genocide because he was the "guy in charge"? Yea - I didn't think so either. He had a lot of support because of his jail time and the evil of the apartheid. So he had little choice but to pursue peace - the other choice being lose all the global goodwill. He was a terrorist - but a pragmatic one.

[Tribesman]

I got a better idea - imagine you were "accidentally" killed in one of those 156 acts of public violence that Mandela admitted to.....


Sorry, but that goes back to your first post. Can you look at the source and explain this on the 156
Source: The State v. Nelson Mandela et al, Supreme Court of South Africa, Transvaal Provincial Division, 1963-1964, Indictment.

THE ANC'S VICTIMS WERE MOSTLY CIVILIANS:
1981 – 2 car bombs at Durban showrooms
1983 – Church Street Bomb (killed 19, wounded 217)
1984 – Durban car bomb (killed 5, wounded 27)
1985-1987 – At least 150 landmines on farm roads (killed 125)
1985 – Amanzimtoti Sanlam shopping centre bomb Dec 23 (killed 2 white women and 3 white children)
1986 – Magoo’s Bar bomb (killed 3, wounded 69)
1986 – Newcastle Court bomb (wounded 24)
1987 – Johannesburg Court bomb (killed 3, wounded 10)
1987 – Wits command centre car bomb (killed 1, wounded 68)
1988 – Johannesburg video arcade (killed 1 unborn baby, wounded 10)
1988 – Roodepoort bank bomb (killed 4, wounded 18)
1988 – Pretoria Police housing unit, 2 bombs (wounded 3)
1988 – Magistrate’s Court bomb (killed 3)
1988 – Benoni Wimpy Bar bomb (killed 1, wounded 56)
1988 – Witbank shopping centre bomb (killed 2, wounded 42)
1988 – Ellis Park Rugby Stadium car bomb (killed 2, wounded 37)

Late 1980s – numerous Wimpy Restaurant bombs (killed many, wounded many)
:hmmm:

[Wolferz]

That may be true, but it's frustrating to see an uncredited quote and find yourself going back through the thread trying to find out who said it.


True, but none of us had the power to judge him when he was alive. All we're judging here is how we and those we talk to percieve him. People don't like seeing others talk about someone in a manner inconsistent with their own perceptions of that person. If you say someone was a saint and I believe I have evidence that shows he was very much the opposite, I consider it my duty to try to correct or balance your stated perception, and vice versa. Otherwise all we would ever see is "Mandela's dead." "Okay, thanks, bye." <Thread closed>

Shut 'er down.:up:

Is it...?

"It's ok to disagree. Nobody can force another to be right":haha:

[Tribesman]

Shut 'er down.:up:

Is there time for one more experiment?
Considering the media love fest which apparently is occurring now, if you type in that exact quote above into a search engine how many matches do you get which have repeated it.
If you find the actual indictment what are the charges and how many acts are on it?

[Jimbuna]

Shut 'er down.:up:



If your referring to the thread I fail to see why but can assure everyone I read every post whilst seated in the back row.

[Tribesman]

No takers eh?:D
Lets see how reality matches without the twist of time travel

1981 – 2 car bombs ...burnt some letters
1983 – Church Street Bomb ....cut a telephone wire
1984 – Durban car bomb ....cut three telephone wires!!!!!
1985-1987 – At least 150 landmines ...damaged a door
1985 – Amanzimtoti Sanlam ...burnt some more letters
1986 – Magoo’s Bar bomb ....broke a window
1987 – Johannesburg Court bomb ...cut down a telegraph pole
1987 – Wits command centre car bomb .... damaged a cable
1988 – Johannesburg video arcade ....destroyed a public phone box
They really bulked out that "156 acts of public violence that Mandela admitted to....."

[AVGWarhawk]

I like tater tots.

[CaptainHaplo]

No takers eh?:D
Lets see how reality matches without the twist of time travel

1986 – Magoo’s Bar bomb ....broke a window

They really bulked out that "156 acts of public violence that Mandela admitted to....."

I just took one for giggles sake....

Date: 14 June, 1986
Three people died and sixty-nine are injured in a bomb explosion in Magoo's Bar on the Durban beach.

Source: http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/magoo039s-bar-bombed

or how about:

On June 14 in 1986 a powerful car bomb exploded at the Why not Bar, also known as Magoo’s in Durban. Three patrons died and 67 were injured.

Source: http://sabctrc.saha.org.za/tvseries/episode68/section3/transcript5.htm

The fact that you would claim that the Magoo bar bombing consisted of merely breaking a window....

Its one thing when you choose to be difficult. But your claim above is an outright and intentional lie - as demonstrated by the sourced quotes. Its pretty low when you have to lie about documented history in an attempt to "be right". And you wonder why you have no credibility.

[Tribesman]

I just took one for giggles sake....



Source: http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/magoo039s-bar-bombed

or how about:



Source: http://sabctrc.saha.org.za/tvseries/episode68/section3/transcript5.htm

The fact that you would claim that the Magoo bar bombing consisted of merely breaking a window....

Its one thing when you choose to be difficult. But your claim above is an outright and intentional lie - as demonstrated by the sourced quotes.
Well done Haplo , you forgot to take the twist of time travel out of your source :rotfl2:
You didn't source your quotes did you, you simply swallowed the crap that's doing the rounds
Now I know this may be a bit difficult to understand, but how is a bombing in 1986 on an indictment from the 1960s?
So back to reality, of your 156 instances of terrorism(from the 193), how many exactly consisted of burning letters, how many were breaking a window and how many were cutting phone wires?

Its pretty low when you have to lie about documented history in an attempt to "be right". And you wonder why you have no credibility. I am afraid (if you will pardon the pun) your line there blows right up in your face.:nope:
Now would you like the genuine indictment so you can modify you errors or are you going to stick with your "source " which ...well, as penguin put it back on page 4 ..." But hey, that's too much knowledge to expect from a guy who is unable to even correctly quote the alleged number from the loony "Christian" website that states it. Well, my opinion doesn't count, as I am from a country which is undermined by the Satanists, just like the Vatican, eh? :rotfl2: (Taken from the same source which states the 156 number).

http://www.historicalpapers.wits.ac.za/?inventory_enhanced/U/Collections&c=158454/R/AD1844-A2-3
That my good fellow is what you can call documented history:03:

[CaptainHaplo]

Well done Haplo , you forgot to take the twist of time travel out of your source :rotfl2:
You didn't source your quotes did you, you simply swallowed the crap that's doing the rounds
Now I know this may be a bit difficult to understand, but how is a bombing in 1986 on an indictment from the 1960s? So back to reality, of your 156 instances of terrorism(from the 193), how many exactly consisted of burning letters, how many were breaking a window and how many were cutting phone wires?

Oh sure - a few of them did. Of course - you didn't want to include things like item 146 or 147 did you? Things where a bomb went off and injured a passing tourist - a white male btw, or a bomb was set up in a hospital waiting room.... Will you spew more lies like the ANC and call those "justifiable military targets"? A large number of the charges were for explosives meant to kill, maim and create terror in the civilian population - thus the life sentence (which would have been death had it not been for outside political influences). There were a LOT of those charges.

So stop acting like the actions he pled guilty for were not acts of terrorism.

Now lets deal with acts that happened later - while Mandela was in jail.

Let's use the Church Street bombing as an example.

In his book "Long Walk to Freedom", Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism, the pictures and details of which follow below. This is the horror which Mandela had “signed off” for while he was in prison – convicted for other acts of terrorism after the Rivonia trial. http://www.southafricaproject.info/remembering_the_church_street_bombing.html

Why don't you read the book - and see in the man's own words how he personally signed off on a bombing that killed 19 people. Oh yea - that would blow your argument out of the water.

I stated:

The man who admitted he was responsible - in whole or in part - for 158 acts of public violence - some including bombings that killed innocent women and children - finally lies dead. 158. 156 of them he pled guilty to in the original Rav raid trial. Magoo's Bar and the Church Street Bombing - both of which Mandella IN HIS OWN BOOK admitted he was involved in - from prison - are 2 more. 156+2. Having not read his entire book - I am sure he has likely admitted to involvement with more. I simply used the number I already knew about. At no point did I say he pled guilty to the latter bombings before they happened.

The thing is - you knew that - and you have continued to intentionally misrepresent my words.

In fact - a simple bit of research shows the following:

In his book, ”Long Walk to Freedom”, Peace Laurette Mandela writes that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism :
1981 – 2 car bombs at Durban showrooms
1983 – Church Street Bomb (killed 19, wounded 217)
1984 – Durban car bomb (killed 5, wounded 27)
1985-1987 – At least 150 landmines on farm roads (killed 125)
1985 – Amanzimtoti Sanlam shopping centre bomb Dec 23 (killed 2 white women and 3 white children)
1986 – Magoo’s Bar bomb (killed 3, wounded 69)
1986 – Newcastle Court bomb (wounded 24)
1987 – Johannesburg Court bomb (killed 3, wounded 10)
1987 – Wits command centre car bomb (killed 1, wounded 68)
1988 – Johannesburg video arcade (killed 1 unborn baby, wounded 10)
1988 – Roodepoort bank bomb (killed 4, wounded 18)
1988 – Pretoria Police housing unit, 2 bombs (wounded 3)
1988 – Magistrate’s Court bomb (killed 3)
1988 – Benoni Wimpy Bar bomb (killed 1, wounded 56)
1988 – Witbank shopping centre bomb (killed 2, wounded 42)
1988 – Ellis Park Rugby Stadium car bomb (killed 2, wounded 37)
Late 1980s – numerous Wimpy Restaurant bombs (killed many, wounded many) http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/apartheid-and-mandela3a-personal-perspectives/5141178

So yes - my points have again proven valid. He admitted his participation in many acts of terror (some of which he was convicted of). Many of those targets could not be claimed to be "military targets" by any stretch. To say he wasn't involved - is to say he lied about his own involvement. Where, pray tell, is your "documented historical source" that says he lied?

So yes - until you can stop intentionally misrepresenting others words, until you can stop ignoring things in your own links that talk about stuff like bombs, and when you can do a little research on what the man himself said he was responsible for - you lack credibility. All you have done by refusing to deal with the facts above - is prove how little credibility you should have.

[Tribesman]

Oh sure - a few of them did. Of course - you didn't want to include things like item 146 or 147 did you? Things where a bomb went off and injured a passing tourist - a white male btw, or a bomb was set up in a hospital waiting room.... Will you spew more lies like the ANC and call those "justifiable military targets"? A large number of the charges were for explosives meant to kill, maim and create terror in the civilian population - thus the life sentence (which would have been death had it not been for outside political influences). There were a LOT of those charges.

So stop acting like the actions he pled guilty for were not acts of terrorism.

Now lets deal with acts that happened later - while Mandela was in jail.

Let's use the Church Street bombing as an example.

http://www.southafricaproject.info/remembering_the_church_street_bombing.html

Why don't you read the book - and see in the man's own words how he personally signed off on a bombing that killed 19 people. Oh yea - that would blow your argument out of the water.

I stated:

158. 156 of them he pled guilty to in the original Rav raid trial. Magoo's Bar and the Church Street Bombing - both of which Mandella IN HIS OWN BOOK admitted he was involved in - from prison - are 2 more. 156+2. Having not read his entire book - I am sure he has likely admitted to involvement with more. I simply used the number I already knew about. At no point did I say he pled guilty to the latter bombings before they happened.

The thing is - you knew that - and you have continued to intentionally misrepresent my words.

In fact - a simple bit of research shows the following:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/apartheid-and-mandela3a-personal-perspectives/5141178

So yes - my points have again proven valid. He admitted his participation in many acts of terror (some of which he was convicted of). Many of those targets could not be claimed to be "military targets" by any stretch. To say he wasn't involved - is to say he lied about his own involvement. Where, pray tell, is your "documented historical source" that says he lied?

So yes - until you can stop intentionally misrepresenting others words, until you can stop ignoring things in your own links that talk about stuff like bombs, and when you can do a little research on what the man himself said he was responsible for - you lack credibility. All you have done by refusing to deal with the facts above - is prove how little credibility you should have.
Interesting, have you read the book, or two books?
You say you have not read the entire book, but have you read any of it, or have you just read stuff on blogs that people say are in it?
In the 62 -94 volume could you point out the page?
If I might remind you, you already conceded he wasn't on the NEC at that time or at any time during the previous 20 years, so why are you using two sources that claim he was?
Your second source is someone called jon who added a comment.
I wonder if jon is just repeating things without checking like you are?:hmm2:

So then, I think you want chapter 88, can you give the words?
when you give the words can you point out who signed off, I already mentioned it, its the bloke called Oliver who was on the NEC:yep:

BTW I already stated that if I was argueing from your perspective I wouldn't go near the church street bombing:03:

[Tribesman]

Sorry to bother you again Haplo, but someone just wrote a line in the drink driving topic that ignited a spark as it were.

In regards the genuine example you picked up on in the real indictment.
Could you just clarify a couple of points for me?
In regards targeting medical facilities and personnel what has been your stated position on this forum in examples like the assault on Fallujah , Lebanon, West Bank ,Lebanon again , Gaza, Lebanon again , Gaza again, Lebanon yet again, Iraq again.......
Would you perhaps be a person who seeks to justify it, would you perhaps be a person who goes as far as blaming the victims of such attacks, including children?

Now more to the point, are you someone who has supported the use of medical facilities in the conduct of covert military operations?
Pakistan springs to mind.

The example you use. The explosive device recovered from the hospital.
Would you class that as an attack on the medical facility or the use (misuse) of medical facilities in the conduct of covert military operations?

What crime would you say the doctor committed in that incident?
Is it a crime you justify or one which you condemn unreservedly, or condemn only on this occasion because of who did it?:hmmm:

[CaptainHaplo]

Sorry to bother you again Haplo, but someone just wrote a line in the drink driving topic that ignited a spark as it were.

In regards the genuine example you picked up on in the real indictment.
Could you just clarify a couple of points for me?
In regards targeting medical facilities and personnel what has been your stated position on this forum in examples like the assault on Fallujah , Lebanon, West Bank ,Lebanon again , Gaza, Lebanon again , Gaza again, Lebanon yet again, Iraq again.......
Would you perhaps be a person who seeks to justify it, would you perhaps be a person who goes as far as blaming the victims of such attacks, including children?

Now more to the point, are you someone who has supported the use of medical facilities in the conduct of covert military operations?
Pakistan springs to mind.

The example you use. The explosive device recovered from the hospital.
Would you class that as an attack on the medical facility or the use (misuse) of medical facilities in the conduct of covert military operations?

What crime would you say the doctor committed in that incident?
Is it a crime you justify or one which you condemn unreservedly, or condemn only on this occasion because of who did it?:hmmm:

See - once again your trying to muddy the waters. None of the above references regarding Pakistan/Iraq/Lebanon/Gaza/etc (ad naseum) have anything to do with the issue of Mandela. Instead - they are your attempts to change the discussion.

As for your other questions - first I note you tried to discredit one source, yes it was a "post" feedback - but you sorely avoided touching the first one that also made clear Mandela's involvement.

Also - regarding Mandela's link to the ANC's NEC - perhaps you should read chapter 88 again....

The government had sent "feelers" to me over the years,
beginning with Minister Kruger's efforts to persuade me to
move to the Transkei. These were not efforts to negotiate,
but attempts to isolate me from my organization. On several
other occasions, Kruger said to me: "Mandela, we can
work with you, but not your colleagues. Be reasonable." Note the wording - "my organization". Hardly words used by a minor member. But words that would be used by one of the established leaders
of the ANC. Also - note that Kruger wants to "work with" Mandela - not his "colleagues" - aka the other leaders of the ANC. If Mandela was not in a leadership role, no Minister of the SA government at the time would have any reason to work with him.

Perhaps you should also read chapter 89:

I was taken to Volks Hospital in Cape Town, under heavy
security. Winnie flew down and was able to see me prior to
the surgery. But I had another visitor, a surprising and
unexpected one: Kobie Coetsee, the minister of justice.
Not long before, I had written to Coetsee pressing him for a
meeting to discuss talks between the ANC and the
government. He did not respond. But that morning, the
minister dropped by the hospital unannounced as if he
were visiting an old friend who was laid up for a few days.
He was altogether gracious and cordial, and for the most
part we simply made pleasantries. Though I acted as
though this was the most normal thing in the world, I was
amazed. The government, in its slow and tentative way,
was reckoning that they had to come to some
accommodation with the ANC. Mandela wrote to start talks - by what authority did he have that right if he was not part of the ANC leadership? And why would the Minister of Justice look to open the door to accomodations with the ANC by visiting "just some member" in a hospital? Mandela's own words make it clear that even from prison, he was a powerful force within the ANC leadership.

In the end - sourced information outweighs your claims. In the end - you have nothing but diversions and insults to spew to those that disagree with you. Well - that is your problem. At this point, there is no reason to continue because you don't want a discussion or debate. Thus, I am finished with you. Good day.

[vanjast]

I think this is apt for the legacy... couldn't have said it better myself :D
wrt the signer
I think the whole thing is hysterically funny. The thing is, the ANC persists in appointing people who are utterly f^&*ing clueless to grandiose positions and then get all huffy when people laugh at and ridicule them. That just makes it funnier!

When they start lecturing the public that they should be respected, I laugh so hard that I sometimes soil my underwear!

[Tribesman]

See - once again your trying to muddy the waters. None of the above references regarding Pakistan/Iraq/Lebanon/Gaza/etc (ad naseum) have anything to do with the issue of Mandela. Instead - they are your attempts to change the discussion. Indeed they are examples of you supporting things or condemning them based solely on who did them.
Something you repeatedly denied doing.

As for your other questions - first I note you tried to discredit one source, yes it was a "post" feedback - but you sorely avoided touching the first one that also made clear Mandela's involvement.

Sorry but you must have missed it , I already asked people how many links they could find using exactly what you posted, the reason for asking is because it is not only false, it is very obviously false.
You can post 10,000 sources using that line, it still doesn't make it true

Also - regarding Mandela's link to the ANC's NEC - perhaps you should read chapter 88 again....

Links to the ANC NEC is not membership of the NEC is it?
Could you explain how Kruger found it possible to meet Mandela but not possible to meet the leadership at the time?
Interesting quote though, they could work with him but would not work with the NEC, kinda cuts the ground from under your feet if you want to say that he was on the NEC like your source claims.
So what exactly was the role?
In case you slept through the period, his main role was posterboy for international support against the regime.
But as I am sure you must realise the previous lines which you fail to quote on page 276 of volume2 put his role as patron of the UDF:hmmm:


Mandela wrote to start talks - by what authority did he have that right if he was not part of the ANC leadership? And why would the Minister of Justice look to open the door to accomodations with the ANC by visiting "just some member" in a hospital? Once again, how was it possible for a Minister to meet Mandela, but not possible to meet the leadership of the ANC at the time?

Time and location again, it gets you every time, you really are buggered without a Tardis:yep:

[vanjast]

In the end - you have nothing but diversions and insults to spew to those that disagree with you. Well - that is your problem.
I figured out early that Tribesman is very good at 'internet research' to boster his opinion, which is already pre-conceived. I found his arguments very much like the liberals here at the time... scattered, unfocused and scathing of anything that is not pro-cANCer. So much so that they actually become blind to the reality.
And as I said before.. he does this from a 1000+ miles away. He should join the ANC party.. he is a suitable candidate. :03:

[Tribesman]

I figured out early that Tribesman is very good at 'internet research' to boster his opinion, which is already pre-conceived. I found his arguments very much like the liberals here at the time... scattered, unfocused and scathing of anything that is not pro-cANCer. So much so that they actually become blind to the reality.
And as I said before.. he does this from a 1000+ miles away. He should join the ANC party.. he is a suitable candidate. :03:

Still waiting for your translation, as a local you shouldn't be having problems with it.
Is there a particular reason why you don't want to translate the two contentious words?:03:

[Oberon]

I must admit, when people fall back on the old "You're not local therefore you don't understand" arguement then they're grasping at straws somewhat. If this was to be the case, then what, pray tell, is the point of this forum subsection? Should we restrict Subsim geographically since people from America won't understand something happening in Europe? Should we automatically discount their view because they're not local?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/films/images/location_shop_270.jpg

:hmmm:

[vanjast]

The word BOER does not exist in the traditional Xhosa (or Zulu) language - If you knew that you wouldn't have to ask me - did the internet tell you something different - must be true then :know:

It does however exist in the Afrikoons (edit: and Afrikaans) language .. quickly look up the Afrikoons language, show us you know something. :haha:

FYI - I learn't Xhosa and Zulu at school - Yup those white racist schools. Are you still a bright intelligent fella ? :har:

As for those stats you like to quote... Stats SA where all this info comes from.. is known to stuff it up bad, and even blatantly lie (ANC) sometimes. Sure you knew that - Hope you're feeling even brighter now.

As the saying goes.. 'There's no fool like an old fool'.. tata :up:

[vanjast]

No Oberon.. my previous post above this explains why I said that.
Tribesman tries to claim explicit knowledge of ZA, Mandela, and the rest.. but fails.. the reason why he fails is because he's not here... nothing more than that.
But he'll swear blind that his story is 'gospel'... it's like listening to a religious nutter
:)

[Buddahaid]

Time to lock the thread as this is nothing but a pissing match now.

[AVGWarhawk]

Let the man rest.....

[vanjast]

Time to lock the thread as this is nothing but a pissing match now.
I thought I'd just piss him off a bit.. :D
I won't take it any further..

[Tribesman]

The word BOER does not exist in the traditional Xhosa (or Zulu) language - If you knew that you wouldn't have to ask me - did the internet tell you something different - must be true then
Can you explain the SABC ruling then ?:har:

I do wish you would be consistant with you local knowledge
your contradictions of your own claims make your claims look well.....