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

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:

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:

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.

But you didn't actually show those findings. If you're going to make a claim it's your job to back it up.

You say that about a lot of people. You never back it up with any proof.

I have no idea what that means.

And you have refused to rebut anything he has said, only take potshots.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

So do the slapping. Show the facts. Show the references. So far you've shown exactly nothing.

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.

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, 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?

Why? I don't have answers. If you make claims it's your job to provide the answers.

I don't know. Why don't you show the facts that back your claims.

I don't know. Why don't you quote the facts that support your claims?

I don't know. Why don't you stop playing games and just quote your facts?

I don't know. Why don't you conduct an honest debate instead of dancing around?

You may well be right. The problem is you'd rather run in circles than discuss the matter openly.

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.

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.

So you do a lot more talking, but still fail to show anything.

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.

Fill your boots Sailor.
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/hrvtrans/index.htm
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/media/...8/s980807a.htm
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/hrvtra...it/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/specia...y/1securit.htm
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report...Volume%202.pdf

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.../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:

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.

Good idea...
Tribesman.. choose a weapon for your side ?:D

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

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".

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.

So of course the ANC - who funded MK - had no real control over their "just" acts of gross human rights violations.

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.

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.

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

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

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


@Sailor Steve.
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.

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

Why would I make that argument?

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.

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

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:

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

and... http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/m...uked-1.1620389

Note carefully what the party are 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: