Mandela was just a man, and that made what he did extraordinary - Page 6




 
--
Mandela was just a man, and that made what he did extraordinary
 
December 16th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Mandela was just a man, and that made what he did extraordinary
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
How was being offered his freedom if he would renounce violence and move back to his homeland in the Transkie blackmail?
Hmmm,... you have a point, in my haste did choose the wrong word.

I should have said "Bribery", they offered his freedom in return for him giving up his rightful cause. Never the less he steadfastly refused to accept their bribes (which is no better than Blackmail anyway), a fact that further enhances his International reputation as a man of conviction and honour. Willing to sacrifice his own freedom for that which is right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
How am I talking trash,
By refusing to recognise as has the rest of the world, that he was conducting a war against an oppressive regime, deaths are part and parcel of war. Was he ever personally charged with having committed a murder?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
So what? At the time of his incarceration Amnesty International would NOT touch him with a ten foot barge pole because he refused point blank to renounce violence.
Oh, is that right? Well, here's another little quote for you
Quote:
In 1964, Mandela and several other members of the African National Congress were convicted of sabotage. After Mandela was sentenced to life in prison, Amnesty International led a campaign against the harsh conditions of his imprisonment and helped bring Mandela - and his struggle against apartheid - to the notice of the world. - See more at: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sen....KeeC8XLq.dpuf
It seems to make rubbish of your statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Yes it is like VD and Israel all over again, except this time you are taking the part of VD, you keep prattling on and on about how good a chap he was, when he was a self confessed terrorist.
Can you quote me one occasion where I said "I think he is a good chap"... you can't because I have very deliberately only ever said that "I agree with World opinion" on the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Not only the majority of International Aid agencies (including Amnesty International) opposed the Apartheid regime, but most of the International community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I am not saying that Amnesty International didn't oppose Apartheid, I even opposed Apartheid.
Read it again, I said "The Apartheid regime" not "Apartheid"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
How is it my opinion that Mandela was a terrorist? That's not my opinion, that fact.
World opinion proves you wrong as it has long been recognised that he was leading a legitimate struggle against an oppressive regime.

All of the above not withstanding, anything you and your extremist mutual admiration society say in relation to the matter is now consigned to the dustbins of history. Even in the most extreme Boer heartland of Oriana, Reuters International record the view, No tears, but a grudging admiration. "But this was a great person. We can recognise it, we can see it and as such we can reach out and say we shared something of a commonality around this person. He had more grace, more presence than many others."

Get over it, no one believes your favourite fairy stories any more.
December 17th, 2013  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Hmmm,... you have a point, in my haste did choose the wrong word.

I should have said "Bribery", they offered his freedom in return for him giving up his rightful cause. Never the less he steadfastly refused to accept their bribes (which is no better than Blackmail anyway), a fact that further enhances his International reputation as a man of conviction and honour. Willing to sacrifice his own freedom for that which is right.
Again how is it bribery? For all we know the end of Apartheid could have come sooner if Mandela had accepted the conditions of his release.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
By refusing to recognise as has the rest of the world, that he was conducting a war against an oppressive regime, deaths are part and parcel of war. Was he ever personally charged with having committed a murder?
Who was at war with whom? Mandela and the rest of his cronies had their own homelands, the black workers from those homelands came to white run South Africa as migrant workers to earn money to send back home for their families, then when they had made enough they went back to their own homelands and then replaced by others.

Mandela was charged with 156 acts of terrorism.

He admits in his autobiography, "Long Walk To Freedom", that he "signed off" to give the OK to his long-time partner Oliver Tambo for terrorist bombings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Oh, is that right? Well, here's another little quote for you It seems to make rubbish of your statement.
Yep that is right.

http://speakingtruthtoamnesty.blogsp...rnational.html

The core of AMNESTY workers are developing a common and united approach to the many problems of great delicacy which face the movement. 1961 brought to a head the issue of whether or not support should be given to men like Nelson Mandela who, through pressure of events, found themselves constrained to recommend a degree of force in opposition to the South African Nationalist Government. This case was a particularly poignant one since Mandela, like his chief, Albert Luthuli, had previously been committed to the principles of non-violence. The opinion of the entire movement was canvassed on this issue during the summer of 1964; a synthesis of all the written views received was presented to the International Assembly at Canterbury in September. The degree of unanimity both of the letters and of the speeches was remarkable. While the greatest sympathy was expressed for those who find themselves deprived of every form of public protest, the movement recorded that it could not give the name of 'Prisoner of Conscience' to anyone associated with violence, even though as in 'convential warfare' a degree of restraint may be exercised. This was not to preclude espousing the cause of those who felt obliged to indulge in symbolic physical acts such as pulling down flags or even defacing posters, nor to exclude those who had tried to protect themselves when threatened by the indiscriminate use of firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Can you quote me one occasion where I said "I think he is a good chap"... you can't because I have very deliberately only ever said that "I agree with World opinion" on the matter.
Well to me it seems that you think he is the best thing since sliced bread, didn't you say that he was the greatest statesman of the 20th century? You agree with world opinion, I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Read it again, I said "The Apartheid regime" not "Apartheid"
Now you are being argumentative, you know full well I meant the Apartheid regime, if you didn't, that is what I did mean

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
World opinion proves you wrong as it has long been recognised that he was leading a legitimate struggle against an oppressive regime.
The world seems to forget or overlook including yourself, Mandela had his own homeland of the Transkei and its own government, along with those from the Ciskie, where the Apartheid Regime had no power to oppress anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
All of the above not withstanding, anything you and your extremist mutual admiration society say in relation to the matter is now consigned to the dustbins of history. Even in the most extreme Boer heartland of Oriana, Reuters International record the view, No tears, but a grudging admiration. "But this was a great person. We can recognise it, we can see it and as such we can reach out and say we shared something of a commonality around this person. He had more grace, more presence than many others."

My extremist mutual admiration society? Now you are being extremely stupid.

Even your mate Monty agree's that Mandela wasn't the saint he has been made out to be.

(Monty) "I think you are missing my point, he sold himself as being the guy who wanted a non-violent end to apartheid but would not renounce violence.

I am not going to argue the evils of apartheid nor the methods used to achieve its end but you can not preach non-violence and refuse to renounce it at the same time that is hypocritical, had he been the guy that just said we want an end to apartheid and we will do what it takes to achieve that I would agree with you but he wasn't that guy."

So does that make him racist or an extremist in your feeble attempt to make me look like?

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Get over it, no one believes your favourite fairy stories any more.
Get over what, pointing out Mandela a a terrorist? Are you saying Mandela never committed terrorist or acts of violence? His acts of terrorism are fairy stories? Not everyone is as blinkered as you are. I have never made any statement regarding Mandela's later life as president of South Africa, I have only made statements regarding his time before he was jailed and during his time in jail. For all you know I might think he was a good president, far better then the previous presidents.

How do you know who believes my so called favourite fairy stores or not? Have you taken a poll? You really are getting above yourself to assume that you know what everyone thinks. Quite frankly and as I keep saying, I don't give a toss that you or the world don't agree with me.
December 17th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Again how is it bribery? For all we know the end of Apartheid could have come sooner if Mandela had accepted the conditions of his release.
I know that you are just being obtuse now, (actually I've had a good idea since you started) but I will explain it one last time, offering of a personal reward (his freedom) to give up a rightful cause is Bribery, Just the same as if you offer a cop $50 to forget he saw you speeding.

So rather than entertain your deliberate stupidity any longer VD2, I will merely repeat what I said last night.

All of the above not withstanding, anything you and your extremist mutual admiration society say in relation to the matter, is now consigned to the dustbins of history. Get used to it.
--
Mandela was just a man, and that made what he did extraordinary
December 18th, 2013  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I know that you are just being obtuse now, (actually I've had a good idea since you started) but I will explain it one last time, offering of a personal reward (his freedom) to give up a rightful cause is Bribery, Just the same as if you offer a cop $50 to forget he saw you speeding.
How am I being obtuse by pointing out Mandela's terrorist past? He was offered his freedom on a number of occasions with conditions to return to his homeland and stop the violence which he refused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
So rather than entertain your deliberate stupidity any longer VD2, I will merely repeat what I said last night.
You are the one who's taking after VD not me. Deliberate stupidity? Public record is deliberate stupidity? You can sugar coat it all you like, the fact remains he was a terrorist who was responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent people including women and children, if you find that justifiable you are sick in the freaking head and a sanctimonious pillock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
All of the above not withstanding, anything you and your extremist mutual admiration society say in relation to the matter, is now consigned to the dustbins of history. Get used to it.
Me and my extremist mutual admiration society? Now you are being just plain stupid. Do you include your mate Monty who agree's with me in that society or anyone who disagree's with you? Quite frankly, you are an idiot.

You spout off about South Africa's Apartheid policies, try reading this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...missioner.html

'Racist' Australia compared to Apartheid South Africa by UN Human Rights commissioner

Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, unlikely to change policy
Aboriginals make up 2 per cent of Australian population

The United Nations' top human rights watchdog has attacked Australia's tough refugee policies and the treatment of outback Aborigines, saying there was a strong undercurrent of racism in the country.

According to UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay, long-standing policies of locking up asylum seekers had 'cast a shadow over Australia's human rights record', and appeared to be completely arbitrary.

'I come from South Africa and lived under this, and am every way attuned to seeing racial discrimination,' she said.

The 69-year-old is a former anti-apartheid campaigner and international criminal court judge, and she was speaking to reporters at the end of a six-day visit.

'There is a racial discriminatory element here which I see as rather inhumane treatment of people, judged by their differences, racial, colour or religions,' she said yesterday.

Before she left Pillay held talks with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and expressed deep concern about the minority Labor government's latest plan to send hundreds of asylum seekers to Malaysia for refugee processing, hoping to appease voter concern about asylum seekers arriving by boat.

The government has been struggling to handle the flow of illegal immigrants and earlier this month said it had struck a deal with Kuala Lumpur to ensure asylum-seekers caught heading to Australia would be sent to Malaysia, which is not a signatory of the U.N. refugee convention.

More than 900 people, mostly from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka, have arrived in Australia so far this year. A total of 134 boats carrying 6,535 people turned up last year, prompting the government to harden immigration policy.

While Pillay's criticism may cause Australia some discomfort internationally, it is unlikely to convince Gillard or her conservative political opponents to change tack, given polls showing wide voter concern about border security.

She also criticised an 'intervention' policy.

It was introduced by the former conservative government and continued by Gillard. It places controls on welfare spending for Aborigines to help fight alcohol and child sex abuse in remote outback areas. 'In my discussions with Aboriginal people, I could sense the deep hurt and pain that they have suffered because of government policies that are imposed on them,' she said.

Australia's 460,000 Aborigines make up about 2 per cent of the population. hey suffer higher rates of unemployment, substance abuse and domestic violence than other Australians, as well as having a 17-year gap in life expectancy.

This is another good read.

https://sites.google.com/site/aborig...heid-australia

If the Aborigines began planting bombs, would that be justified?
December 18th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
How am I being obtuse by pointing out Mandela's terrorist past? He was offered his freedom on a number of occasions with conditions to return to his homeland and stop the violence which he refused.
You ask this for the second, third or even fourth time, and I have explained it in detail understandable by a blind, deaf mute.

No more,.... I'm not even interested.

The Aboriginal question has been dealt with at great length on this Forum and you ask nothing new so once again I will refrain from answering.
P.S. Aboriginals were still spearing whites well into this century, never the less they were not Terrorists they were defending what they saw as their own.

It is impossible to sensibly debate anything with a person who freely admits that he has no respect for World opinion. Majority opinion anywhere, is the basis for all Common law upon which our systems are founded.
December 18th, 2013  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
You ask this for the second, third or even fourth time, and I have explained it in detail understandable by a blind, deaf mute.
Yet you haven't answered my question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
No more,.... I'm not even interested.
I'm glad to hear it, this was getting boring going around in circles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
The Aboriginal question has been dealt with at great length on this Forum and you ask nothing new so once again I will refrain from answering.
Hmm I wonder why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
P.S. Aboriginals were still spearing whites well into this century, never the less they were not Terrorists they were defending what they saw as their own.
I agree, but would you think it justifiable if they began planting explosive devices?

P.S. Blacks in South Africa are still spearing whites today as well as using AK47's and panga's

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
It is impossible to sensibly debate anything with a person who freely admits that he has no respect for World opinion. Majority opinion anywhere, is the basis for all Common law upon which our systems are founded.
It depends on what subject world opinion is talking about. For example I agree with world opinion regarding Israel as a rouge state that needs taking apart. By the way, sanctions don't work, South Africa got around them quite effectively and so has Zimbabwe.

I make my own mind up, I refuse to be swayed by the opinions of others.
December 18th, 2013  
senojekips
 
 
[QUOTE=BritinAfrica;666333]Yet you haven't answered my question. That's because you haven't read my answers.

I'm glad to hear it, this was getting boring going around in circles. Only you can stop that, read the answers and respect world opinion and it's all over.

Hmm I wonder why.Because you obviously haven't read them. Actually I'd bet you have read them, but it's convenient for you at this moment to say you haven't as it would explain too much for you.

I agree, but would you think it justifiable if they began planting explosive devices? Why, do you think that this would make the victims "deader"? The obvious answer being Yes!, if we treated our Aboriginals the way SA treated her non whites, explosives may well have become their weapon of choice.

P.S. Blacks in South Africa are still spearing whites today as well as using AK47's and panga's Whose problem is that? Had the previous White Governments spent more time and effort on educating and servicing these people instead of enslaving them and deliberately dividing the community by law, they probably would not act this way. Now you are whining about the outcome of the inhumane system you say was not as bad as it was painted. Pbbbttt,...

It depends on what subject world opinion is talking about. Meaning that if the opinions are in line with your own you agree otherwise not? It may come as a shock to you but Democracy itself is founded upon majority opinion.

I make my own mind up, I refuse to be swayed by the opinions of others. Obviously, we see conspiracy theorists like this every day. Just try arguing with one of these nut cases who insist that 9/11 was an inside job, they too ignore world opinion and plain common sense.

Just a last comment to part on. "If you don't respect world opinion, imagine what the civilised world thinks of your opinions" (especially on a matter such as this)
December 19th, 2013  
BritinAfrica
 
 
[quote=senojekips;666338]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
Yet you haven't answered my question. That's because you haven't read my answers.
I did read your answers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I'm glad to hear it, this was getting boring going around in circles. Only you can stop that, read the answers and respect world opinion and it's all over.
I'm not going to respect world opinion if I don't agree with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Hmm I wonder why.Because you obviously haven't read them. Actually I'd bet you have read them, but it's convenient for you at this moment to say you haven't as it would explain too much for you.
Hmm I don't remember a thread of the Aboriginal question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I agree, but would you think it justifiable if they began planting explosive devices? Why, do you think that this would make the victims "deader"? The obvious answer being Yes!, if we treated our Aboriginals the way SA treated her non whites, explosives may well have become their weapon of choice.
As I keep saying, I never did agree with apartheid, then or now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
P.S. Blacks in South Africa are still spearing whites today as well as using AK47's and panga's Whose problem is that? Had the previous White Governments spent more time and effort on educating and servicing these people instead of enslaving them and deliberately dividing the community by law, they probably would not act this way. Now you are whining about the outcome of the inhumane system you say was not as bad as it was painted. Pbbbttt,...
I'm not saying that apartheid was as bad as it was painted, that was in an email I received. By the way, schools were built by the SA Government and then burned down along with the ANC battle cry "Freedom before education." What the masses did not seem to realise education is freedom.


[quote=senojekips;666338]It depends on what subject world opinion is talking about. Meaning that if the opinions are in line with your own you agree otherwise not? It may come as a shock to you but Democracy itself is founded upon majority opinion.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
I make my own mind up, I refuse to be swayed by the opinions of others. Obviously, we see conspiracy theorists like this every day. Just try arguing with one of these nut cases who insist that 9/11 was an inside job, they too ignore world opinion and plain common sense.


How is having my own opinion a conspiracy theory? I seriously doubt 9/11 was an inside job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Just a last comment to part on. "If you don't respect world opinion, imagine what the civilised world thinks of your opinions" (especially on a matter such as this)
I don't care what the world thinks of my opinions, I'm not interested in even trying to change anyone's opinion.