Nelson Mandela

Clint Planet · December 7, 2013

EFCNIK said:
TROLOLOLOL

I'm in tears here, you brute.

Blue 1 · December 7, 2013

http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/mandela.htm

Read this if you've got half an hour to spare, Nik.

Or anyone else who hasn't read any of his speeches, really. Not just Nik.

potato · December 7, 2013

“When people are determined they can overcome anything.”

hullefc · December 7, 2013

EFCNIK said:
Again, it's all about wrongs making rights and an eye for an eye.

I still dont think indiscriminatly TARGETING innocent people (i.e the ones who werent involved, the women the children some of the men etc) is an OK thing to do and justified by the vile oppression they recieved from authority. But that's just me. And it's still open to debate whether Mandela himself ordered such attacks, but one things for sure that his assosiates did. He was either involved or turned a blind eye, or like you said justified it because of the racist oppression.

You lot seem to not be getting that I mean the targeting of innocent people, I couldnt give a **** if they just went after the police or the army or whoever else was involved in such horrendous discrimination.

That is no better than The IRA who also felt oppressed and used it to justify the bombing of busy civilian streets, no better than the Lee Rigby killers who justified attacking an innocent man because of the wrongs of the west elsewhere, no better than ETA who could also be considered 'freedom fighters' for the basque country.

I am not saying he wasnt a great man in the end and brought democracy to a notoriously bigotted and fascist regime. But I think the lack of questions being raised about his past is disconcerting, because there are many still unanswered.

The British army's Military Reaction Force would drive around nationalist areas in Belfast, stop their car and shoot the nearest innocent civilians.

The British army have a long long history of deliberately targeting innocent civilians, torture them by doing things like ramming broken bottles into vaginas and into males ar*es, and killing them.

In Apartheid South Africa, backed by some elements of the British establishment, like a section that backed the Nazi's, black people, and those deemed 'coloured' were routinely treated as sub human and the killed by the police and military. At first blacks, coloured and whites had peaceful demonstrations, and what was the response? More violent repression.

With every turn of unprovoked violent oppression against people, that wanted to be treated as humans, what were they supposed to do? Go home and watch as the state got more and more violent and do nothing, turn the other cheek, roll over and get their belly tickled etc..

Apartheid violence was always going to produce a violent response from the mass of people that violence was waged against. Violence was used as a tactic to disrupt the Apartheid regime, to try and cripple it economically and politically. A bit like the fire bombing of Dresden that killed 10 000s of factory workers so as to disrupt the Nazi economy.

There was a war going on in South Africa and the ANC decide that they would meet violence with violence. They attacked the police, the army and important economic interests in an attempt to make the country ungovernable. Those oppressed resort to violence as a last resort and often after long deliberations after the violence of those doing the oppression get more and more violent. The Apartheid regime would not have given up without a fight. The level of violence and terror is the sole responsibility of the Apartheid regime.

steken1 · December 7, 2013

hullefc said:
The British army's Military Reaction Force would drive around nationalist areas in Belfast, stop their car and shoot the nearest innocent civilians.

The British army have a long long history of deliberately targeting innocent civilians, torture them by doing things like ramming broken bottles into vaginas and into males ar*es, and killing them.

In Apartheid South Africa, backed by some elements of the British establishment, like a section that backed the Nazi's, black people, and those deemed 'coloured' were routinely treated as sub human and the killed by the police and military. At first blacks, coloured and whites had peaceful demonstrations, and what was the response? More violent repression.

With every turn of unprovoked violent oppression against people, that wanted to be treated as humans, what were they supposed to do? Go home and watch as the state got more and more violent and do nothing, turn the other cheek, roll over and get their belly tickled etc..

Apartheid violence was always going to produce a violent response from the mass of people that violence was waged against. Violence was used as a tactic to disrupt the Apartheid regime, to try and cripple it economically and politically. A bit like the fire bombing of Dresden that killed 10 000s of factory workers so as to disrupt the Nazi economy.

There was a war going on in South Africa and the ANC decide that they would meet violence with violence. They attacked the police, the army and important economic interests in an attempt to make the country ungovernable. Those oppressed resort to violence as a last resort and often after long deliberations after the violence of those doing the oppression get more and more violent. The Apartheid regime would not have given up without a fight. The level of violence and terror is the sole responsibility of the Apartheid regime.