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.

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

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.

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.

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:

Shut 'er down.:up:

Is it...?

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

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?

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.

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....."

I like tater tots.

I just took one for giggles sake....

Source: http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-ev...39s-bar-bombed

or how about:

Source: http://sabctrc.saha.org.za/tvseries/...ranscript5.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.

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?

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..../R/AD1844-A2-3
That my good fellow is what you can call documented history:03:

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/r...t_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/...ctives/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:

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....

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:

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.

I think this is apt for the legacy... couldn't have said it better myself :D
wrt the signer

Indeed they are examples of you supporting things or condemning them based solely on who did them.
Something you repeatedly denied doing.

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

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:


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: