Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Mandela expressed remorse and contrition for the violent activities of the ANC. But Apartheid was more than just separate water coolers. It was forced relocations of people, mass killings by authorities and treating the majority population as less than human. It was a crime against humanity.

 

PTR

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Gee... If there was ever any need for violence, I would think apartheid would warrant it. What do you think the oppressed were going to do? Dress up like Mohawks and throw tea into a harbor? That will teach 'em!

 

Kinda funny how people are saying violence is not the answer. Have they ever lived under apartheid and its conditions?

 

Mandela expressed remorse and contrition for the violent activities of the ANC. But Apartheid was more than just separate water coolers. It was forced relocations of people, mass killings by authorities and treating the majority population as less than human. It was a crime against humanity.

 

PTR

 

And denial of citizenship! Even a guy like TYTT could wrap his libertarian brain around that.

Posted

I never heard anything about blowing up schools. But I do know that when he was younger he was in favor of a violent revolt to end Apartheid.

 

He was never "in favor" of it as much as he recognized the necessity of it. I'd consider him no more a terrorist than John Brown or Frederick Douglass.

 

His involvement with the militant arm of the ANC seems rather whitewashed, though. Could be because the MK was founded in '61, and he was in prison from '62 onwards, so he may not have had much direct involvement aside from founding it...but aside from "he founded it" there's just not much info I can find.

Posted

 

 

He was never "in favor" of it as much as he recognized the necessity of it. I'd consider him no more a terrorist than John Brown or Frederick Douglass.

 

His involvement with the militant arm of the ANC seems rather whitewashed, though. Could be because the MK was founded in '61, and he was in prison from '62 onwards, so he may not have had much direct involvement aside from founding it...but aside from "he founded it" there's just not much info I can find.

I'm sure wacka and Tasker can point you to some reputable sources...

 

Posted

Good riddance. Socialists dumped in a hole, or stacked in a pile are socialists who can do no more harm on this earth. Quickly to Hell with you, Nelson. Quickly to Hell.

you truly are a mean spirited, resentful, angry, shameless person. it's a good thing you no longer have a gardner and housekeeper to bully. karma's a B word...
Posted

Good riddance. Socialists dumped in a hole, or stacked in a pile are socialists who can do no more harm on this earth. Quickly to Hell with you, Nelson. Quickly to Hell.

 

Pretty harsh for someone who likes socialist music and socialist control of all ideas.

 

Pretty harsh period, actually.

Posted

He was never "in favor" of it as much as he recognized the necessity of it. I'd consider him no more a terrorist than John Brown or Frederick Douglass.

 

His involvement with the militant arm of the ANC seems rather whitewashed, though. Could be because the MK was founded in '61, and he was in prison from '62 onwards, so he may not have had much direct involvement aside from founding it...but aside from "he founded it" there's just not much info I can find.

Yes, the necessity of targeting civilians...which makes you a terrorist. Legitimate military groups attack other military groups.

 

Bomb a mall = terrorist

Bomb a military convoy = Soldier

 

There is never any legitimate reason to target civilian populations, and anyone who does is a war criminal.

Posted

 

 

There is never any legitimate reason to target civilian populations, and anyone who does is a war criminal.

 

So was Truman a war criminal? How about Churchill and Harris?

Posted

So was Truman a war criminal? How about Churchill and Harris?

There's a reason that the Geneva conventions established civilians targets as off limits after WW2. If you apply the very rules these leaders created after the war, then yes, they would be war criminals. Fire-bombings and nuclear explosions would certainly make you a war criminal today.

Posted (edited)
Pretty harsh for someone who likes socialist captialist music and socialist rejects artificial governmentally awarded control of all ideas.

Fixed for you.

 

Pretty harsh period, actually.

Hardly. Socialists, and other despots sharing many or most of their ideals, have been responsible for the larger amount of attroicities committed against the human race since Karl Marx put pen to paper. The fewer of them in the world, especially those absurdly lionized as heroes, the better. They have more value stacked in piles than standing amongst us.

 

you truly are a mean spirited, resentful, angry, shameless person. it's a good thing you no longer have a gardner and housekeeper to bully. karma's a B word...

Do you mean a gardner and a housekeeper to provide gainful employment to? I do, infact, have both; the housekeeper has changed, however. As to bullying them? Hardly. They are treated extraordinarilly well. You should ask them about their Christmas bonuses. Or perhaps inquire after my gardner about how I cover the costs of sending his son to private school.

 

Terrible monster I am.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Posted

 

Fixed for you.

 

 

Hardly. Socialists, and other despots sharing many or most of their ideals, have been responsible for the larger amount of attroicities committed against the human race since Karl Marx put pen to paper. The fewer of them in the world, especially those absurdly lionized as heroes, the better. they have more value stacked in piles than stand amongst us.

 

Nelson Mandella was democratically elected, no?

 

Please list some mass socialist tragedies.

Posted (edited)

Nelson Mandella was democratically elected, no?

 

Please list some socialist tragedies.

ObamaCare

Dacia and Yugo

Red Dawn

MarcelDareusPower

Edited by Jauronimo
Posted

There's a reason that the Geneva conventions established civilians targets as off limits after WW2. If you apply the very rules these leaders created after the war, then yes, they would be war criminals. Fire-bombings and nuclear explosions would certainly make you a war criminal today.

 

Civilian targets were off-limits before World War II, too. That's one of the reasons the USAAF maintained the lip-service to "precision bombing of industrial targets" throughout the war.

Posted

Yes, the necessity of targeting civilians...which makes you a terrorist. Legitimate military groups attack other military groups.

 

Bomb a mall = terrorist

Bomb a military convoy = Soldier

 

There is never any legitimate reason to target civilian populations, and anyone who does is a war criminal.

 

So John Brown was a war criminal. And William T. Sherman. And Samuel Adams.

×
×
  • Create New...