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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 the review the topic I have said it several times.











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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

And attempting to be patronizing when your proven wrong isn't going to make you look better....

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

see above.

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.

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.

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

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

Please read some more of the documentation.

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.

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!:

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.

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

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>

: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, Mandela was taken off the US terrorism watch list: Mandela off US terrorism watch list .

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 "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-enter...ambo-attorneys.

A very impressive biography!