Nelson Mandela dies

[sinjefe]

For a different perspective on Mandela;

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dav...ela-1918-2013/

He may not be all David Horowitz says he is, but he is far from the saint he is being portrayed as. And should not Mandela be somewhat judged by the conditions he foisted on South Africans?:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgr...n-the-shadows/

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Guymullins

I am not an Apartheid apologist, but the western press has always sold it as prime evil instead of the possible best solution to Africas problems. Imagine an America where the ratios were the other way round. 10% white and 90% black, and you will begin to see that majority rule under those circumstances would not be great for the furtherance of the American Dream.

Why not?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Why not?

Sig, not to divert, but did you ever live in South Africa?

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

will be interesting to see if Obama goes to the funeral. Since he dissed Thatcher.

You called it.

After Snubbing Thatcher Funeral, Obama and Michelle to Visit South Africa for Mandela

On Friday, the White House announced that President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama would travel to South Africa next weeks to pay their respects to Nelson Mandela. Obama has already announced that the White House will fly the flags at half-staff though December 9 in Mandela’s honor.

When former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died, President Obama did not lower the White House flags, nor did he attend her funeral, instead sending ex-Secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker III. The Sun reported, “[Downing] Street is most angered by rejections from Obama, First Lady Michelle and Vice-President Joe Biden.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ent-1153123259

Fuck this guy and his whole phony administration.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Guymullins

Imagine an America where the ratios were the other way round. 10% white and 90% black, and you will begin to see that majority rule under those circumstances would not be great for the furtherance of the American Dream.

Like Zimbabwe?

TR

[Stobey]

Originally Posted by Sdiver

Fuck this guy and his whole phony administration.

And the horse he rode in on!

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Like Zimbabwe?

TR

And every other majority rule country in Africa. When the Colonial administrations left or were driven out, they didn't bother to turn out the lights because they knew it wouldn't be long before they went out on their own.

GM - I sympathize. I wish I could say I can't imagine having to live through the disintegration of everything generations of your ancestors had worked to build but I'm afraid that's our inevitable path too. How many years before SA faces Rhodesia's fate?

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Why not?

Because you would have a similar outcome to what all of Africa has. In SA, after 18 years, what hasn't been broken has been stolen. Anything that has a warm hole is raped (this week, a new-born baby and last week, a goat) and hundreds of murders a month, often for no more than a cellphone. If you want more, I could go on for days, but I am sure you get the drift. In your own country, if the ratio was reversed, you would have to accommodate a very high percentage of felons in Congress and the senate, as we do.

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I actually didn't know Mandela had the history he did. I was one of the general admirers until learning all this. However, I would raise the question of, was he really in the same league as people like Che Guevara? Reason I ask is because the blacks were treated extremely harshly by the government in South Africa, and in that context, becoming a terrorist could be understandable in that context. For example, I read one article that said that the violent acts committed by Mandela were not anything comparable to what the apartheid government itself did. Whereas people like Che were just mass-murdering thugs.

Also I heard that Nelson Mandela later renounced the violence of the other communist governments?

Mandela never renounced violence. He was offered early release many times if he did.
If you think there is ever a good reason for becoming a terrorist (murdering women and children and innocent parties), you can believe that Mandela was justified. I think he had a case to become a freedom fighter (kill security force or police personnel), but not a terrorist. He was a member of the Communist Party of SA at the time of his conviction and leader of Mkhonto we Sizwe, the Armed Terror Wing of the ANC. In any other country, Western or Eastern Block, at the time, he would have been executed having been found guilty of the charges he admitted to. Much of his spirit of reconciliation toward the whites in later years is because he knew he was shown uncommon mercy by his enemies at his trial.
You must remember that he was in no position to enforce anything after his release. The advent of majority rule was because of the persuasion ( sanctions and isolation) from our Western friends and the dissipation of Communist power after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In a triumph of hope over common sense , the white electorate voted to include the blacks in government. This has proven to be a very costly mistake for freedom and prosperity in SA.

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Like Zimbabwe?

TR

Yes, exactly like Zimbabwe. Despite running (walking?) the country for more than thirty years, Mugabe still blames the whites, about 1% of the population for the state of the economy. He has destroyed agriculture, employment and mining, the bedrock of the economy. He has even managed to lose his currency and the official Zimbabwe currency is the US Dollar and the SA Rand. Where have you EVER heard of a country losing its currency? And the people keep voting for Mugabe, year after year. That is majority rule, in a nutshell. The people don't understand the vote and the rulers don't understand how to rule.

[Guymullins]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I do not at all see it justified in becoming a terrorist, just that if one comes from a background of extreme oppression from one ethnicity, they can grow to despise that ethnicity and thus be willing to engage in all sorts of violence to any and all people of that ethnicity. It is unfortunate, but that is how humans are. It takes a very strong human usually who can be treated harshly by a particular ethnicity, etc...but then see fit to not treat the innocents of that ethnicity harshly. So while not right I think what Mandela did could be more understandable in that context. That is what makes Dr. King so admirable, as he advocated non-violent resistance.

Yes, I think King was admirable. However, he was never tested with the reins of power and he never got his hands on the cheque book. To be honest, I don't think he had a viable alternative to non-violence in America. You would have nailed him in a minute had he done the terrorist thing. Mugabe also made nice noises at the beginning, while simultaneously murdering hundreds of thousands of Matabili who were not his tribesmen. Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Kaunda all made genteel noises before and during their reigns while they raped their countries. Nice noises are cheap in Africa. Mandela also made them , but the AIDS denial and the Arms Deal corruption started with his administration. Ne never raised his voice against these abominations, ever.

[RomanCandle]

As a fellow South African I think Guy has said it all most succinctly. I'd like to add that as a kid in school growing up in the 80's it was telling that we had to be trained at school on how to ID the various landmines, limpet mines etc because schools were considered legitimate targets for bombing. Our streets and malls never had any refuse bins of any sort because these were prime spots to place a mine to target shoppers.

I could almost understand them regarding whites as the enemy, but seeing how Mandela's government so readily signed off on the massacre of so many Sierra Leonians and seemed so eager to see his former FAPLA allies in Angola overrun by Jonas Savimbi's UNITA in the 90's simply to spite an organisation that they felt was made up of former SADF soldiers. Of course the lure of cheap diamonds was probably also a factor, but there you go..

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I actually didn't know Mandela had the history he did. I was one of the general admirers until learning all this. However, I would raise the question of, was he really in the same league as people like Che Guevara? Reason I ask is because the blacks were treated extremely harshly by the government in South Africa, and in that context, becoming a terrorist could be understandable in that context. For example, I read one article that said that the violent acts committed by Mandela were not anything comparable to what the apartheid government itself did. Whereas people like Che were just mass-murdering thugs.

Also I heard that Nelson Mandela later renounced the violence of the other communist governments?

Look up a few balanced perspectives on the history of the ANC, if you can find them, and get back to us.

TR

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-...ela-overlooked

BMT

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Guymullins

In your own country, if the ratio was reversed, you would have to accommodate a very high percentage of felons in Congress and the senate, as we do.

lol BTDT