It's quite simple. You point out Mandela's alleged crimes for which you eagerly state that he should have been hung, but pointedly refuse to acknowledge the far worse crimes of the regime he was up against committed over a much longer period. Crimes acknowledged by the UN and almost every aid agency in the civilised world.
Those crimes are not alleged, Mandela admitted to them in court
I will accept whatever you say, when you can say something based on even handed facts.
I don't care if you accept what I say or not, the facts of his crimes are in the public domain as well as Mandela's trial transcripts.
It doesn't have to Jell with just my opinion,.... it has to jell with World opinion. There is an enormous difference,... But then again there are people who feel that world opinion is of no consequence, like the Israelis and we know how they are loved and cherished around the world.
Again I don't care what world opinion is, they are overlooking of deliberately ignoring the crimes he committed against innocent civilians, that doesn't say much for world opinion. As for Israel, you know full well what my opinion is, I even agree with you 100% regarding their crimes against the Palestinians. Israel IS a rouge state.
You stated categorically that he "refused to end the violence". Something that is clearly a lie because the violence did end. It ties in with the following statement. "The truth is, "that he never ended the violence until the Apartheid government were willing to do the same",... and you feel that, that is a crime?"
Once again its public record that he refused to end violence to obtain an early release from jail. I wasn't privy to discussions between Mandela and the apartheid government and neither were you, so neither of us know for sure what was discussed.
So, you are saying that it's OK for the Apartheid regime to deliberately kill and maim innocent people, but not those resisting them? The ANC were merely fighting fire with fire and that the Apartheid regime were committing far worse crimes and had been for many years, treating the natives like animals, subjecting them to Police murder squads, Laws no White man had to obey, Laws enforced by daily harassment, beatings and murder.
You are misquoting me yet again, I keep saying over and over which you chose to ignore that I did not and still do not agree with the apartheid regime.
I received this in my email this morning.
History in Perspective
Since this tired old canard keeps cropping up to hit white South Africans over the nose like a rolled up newspaper, I thought it perhaps time to separate fact from fiction once and for all. Let those who object say so now or forever hold their peace. While we're at it, let's put apartheid as a system into perspective.
Do we know how many blacks were killed under apartheid?
We do, and the source ...is none other than the Human Right Commission submitted as evidence to the TRC in 1997.
The statistics they proffered relate to the number of blacks killed between the years 1948 up to the election in 1994. The total number of blacks killed were 21,000.
But wait, it gets more interesting. It's not the full story.
The HRC report also makes a distinction between two periods. One from 1948 till 1989 and the next from 1990 to the election in 1994. The number killed for the period from 1948 until 1989 is 7,000.
That means the number killed from 1990 to 1994 which is AFTER the unbanning of the ANC and for all intents and purposes apartheid had ended is a whopping 14,000, involving mostly black on black violence between the ANC and the IFP and various other factions! Not whitey's fault.
Of the 14 000 killed during those 4 years, 92% of deaths were caused by blacks killing blacks. Only 5.6% were attributed to the Security Forces at the time and usually in retaliation to attacks initiated by the ANC/UDF that had been unbanned. Remember Ciskei ? The difference in % is due to unknown causes.
What this means is that during the apartheid reign of 41 years, 7 000 blacks died compared to double the amount of dead in just 4 years! Let me break it down yet further, 170 blacks were killed as a result of apartheid ANNUALLY. That's 170 people per year! That's the HRC’s figures! Sounds like an insignificant number now doesn't it?
More blacks then were killed under De Klerk's 'new' anti-apartheid government of 4 years than in 41 years of government under full blown apartheid!
Let me summarise, this needs to sink in:
1948 - 1989: 7 000
1990 - 1994: 14 000 (of which 92% as a result of 'black-on-black' violence)
Really, is this the death toll of the "heinous" apartheid system the world grew to hate? Just 7000 deaths?
And was it the worst thing to happen in the 20th century? Um, let's look at the Left's favourite socialist/ communist/ Marxist/ dictators leaders to name but a few:
• Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) : 23 million (the purges plus Ukraine 's famine)
• Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) : 78 million
• Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79): 1,7 million
• Menghistu ( Ethiopia, 1975-78): 1,5 million
The list of far worse political systems is quite extensive and apartheid wouldn't even feature. But such was the venom against it that the result is a country destroyed.
Apartheid was far from the monster it continues to be portrayed. I agree though that it was unjustifiable and unsustainable and just plain wrong and given a do-over, whites would rather leave blacks to find their way than provide jobs and healthcare and other services which caused their population to balloon from 500,000 when Van Riebeeck landed to the almost 40 million in 1994.
(Facts are really just inconvenient little things that keep getting in the way!)