Mandela died

[Nikk]

Munzy There was not equality in NI. The IRA were scumbags correct but the argument for more equality was also right, sadly the politicians didn't listen until it was too late and people were coerced or even forced in to having the IRA/Sinn Fein as their only spokesmen. There were a lot of injustices done by our government in Ireland as a whole and that was what caused the backlash. There are a lot of parallels in my opinion, In Irelands case the roots lay in religion and in SA race but both were the result of colonialism.

[Munzy]

But Nikk, surely everyone in NI had freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to use the same toilets as each other? I know given the tensions there are obviously places you wouldn't want to go as a Catholic/Protestant but everyone was officially equal no?

Edited December 8, 2013 by Munzy

[shakari]

Thats interesting revisionism with regard to europe and wwwII. Ever heard of the marshall plan. Perhaps you should check out the expenditure and then revise up for the 21st century.

 

Ridiculous comparison.

 

 

The MP ran for about 4 years and was from the USA to Europe.

 

African countries have been in receipt of foreign aid from umpteen different countries and even more NGOs for decades and have obviously copped many times more....... One of the main differences is that whilst most of the MP monies more or less got to where it should be, the VAST majority of foreign aid to Africa goes straight into the Swiss and other private bank accounts of Ministers and others in positions of power and a good percentage of what's left is usually misused entirely....... and I'll be very happy to give you practical examples of that as well if you wish!

[overandunder2012]

 

I think this debate simply boils down to whether violent action is ever acceptable. In terms of the horrors of Apartheid I think if peaceful action is falling on deaf ears and violence is the only thing left what would you do as a black South African?

 

 

think your right, im guessing if a bunch of overseas people moved here and took over the government and treated the local people like dirt we would find we would have a few of our own "terrorists" soon enough maybe the debate is about if this kind of action is ever justifiable, many regimes are toppled by the use of force often with the agreement of western governments (rightly or wrongly) and as with the case of Apartheid most people world wide arnt sorry they are gone

[Nikk]

But Nikk, surely everyone in NI had freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to use the same toilets as each other? I know given the tensions there are obviously places you wouldn't want to go as a Catholic/Protestant but everyone was officially equal no?

 

No they didn't to be honest. I copied this from Wiki as I can't dig my books out but here are some of the injustices suffered by the Catholics. It's not as bad as apartheid but its still very bad.

 

 

 

In 1964, a peaceful civil rights campaign began in Northern Ireland. The civil rights movement sought to end discrimination against Catholics (including those of Catholic background) and Irish nationalists by the Protestant and unionist-dominated government of Northern Ireland. It called for:

• an end to job discrimination – it showed evidence that Catholics/nationalists were less likely to be given certain jobs, especially government jobs
• public housing to be allocated on the basis of need rather than religion or political views – it showed evidence that unionist-controlled local councils allocated housing to Protestants ahead of Catholics/nationalists
• one man, one vote – in NI, only householders could vote in local elections, while in the rest of the UK all adults could vote
• an end to gerrymandering of electoral boundaries – this meant that nationalists had less voting power than unionists, even where nationalists were a majority
• reform of the police force (Royal Ulster Constabulary or RUC) – it was almost 100% Protestant and accused of sectarianism and police brutality
• repeal of the Special Powers Act – this allowed police to search without a warrant, arrest and imprison people without charge or trial, ban any assemblies or parades, and ban any publications; the Act was used almost exclusively against nationalists and republicans

[Nikk]

The problem with things like this is that given time world opinion can and often is changed through peaceful means and that can force Govermentws to change their behaviour. But you always get a group that want it immediately and are extreme enough to use violence (IRA/and MK etc). It's hard to know if things would have got sorted out in any of the countries which have had insurgencies had they chosen peaceful protest instead but I think that Ironically insurgencies may even prolong the problems and cause more suffering because the violence is used by bad governments as an excuse for becoming even more draconian.

[Munzy]

That's interesting Nikk, didn't know about most of that. As you say, not at the same level of persecution as Apartheid.

 

Fair point about violent action potentially prolonging change too, I think that is very true in some cases.

 

Also Overandunder2012... Spot-on! Given some of the comments in the thread about that Royal Marine I'm pretty sure there would be a PW platoon locked and loaded within 24 hours!

[overandunder2012]

The problem with things like this is that given time world opinion can and often is changed through peaceful means and that can force Govermentws to change their behaviour. But you always get a group that want it immediately and are extreme enough to use violence (IRA/and MK etc). It's hard to know if things would have got sorted out in any of the countries which have had insurgencies had they chosen peaceful protest instead but I think that Ironically insurgencies may even prolong the problems and cause more suffering because the violence is used by bad governments as an excuse for becoming even more draconian.

a few flag waving hippies and bono wernt going to change Apartheid

[Gimlet]

British government are by definition "state terrorists" have been for centuries look at what we have done in Ireland, Africa, Australia, India in fact all the commonwealth countries, we are still acting as terrorists in places like the Falkland Islands & Gibraltar

 

George Washington used the teeth from his slaves to make his own false ones

 

You're confusing Terrorism with imperialism and colonialism.

Terrorism is using violence or the threat of violence in pursuit of a political ojective. Colonialism is the mass settlement of a land which is not yours and imperialism is the projection of economic and political power over another country from overseas.

Britain was once both an imperial and a colonial power. It has never been a terrorist nation, though it has certainly had its moments of brutality which might today be classed as war crimes or even crimes against humanity, such as Suez (though that was a massive elephant trap which we stupidly walked into), the Boer War, Mau-Mau uprisings, Bloody Sunday. And plenty of others. But to equate the imperial world of a past age with modern terrorism is to misunderstand history and politics.

 

The Falklands are not a British colony. They were not colonised from Argentina because they were never Argentinian territory. The were French before they were British. They have been both French and British territory longer than Argentina has existed as a nation. The islands are a self-governing British Overseas Territory recognised under international law. The Islanders choose their British allegiance, it is not forced upon them. Argentina is in fact the aspirant colonist. Gibraltar is a spoil of war. Again recognised under internatinal law, and again Gibraltarians choose their political allegiance. It is Spain which wishes to force a settlement on them against their wishes.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Gimlet

[Dr D]

Ridiculous comparison.

 

 

The MP ran for about 4 years and was from the USA to Europe.

 

African countries have been in receipt of foreign aid from umpteen different countries and even more NGOs for decades and have obviously copped many times more....... One of the main differences is that whilst most of the MP monies more or less got to where it should be, the VAST majority of foreign aid to Africa goes straight into the Swiss and other private bank accounts of Ministers and others in positions of power and a good percentage of what's left is usually misused entirely....... and I'll be very happy to give you practical examples of that as well if you wish!

My goodness. Your hostile!

1. Its useful to know your level of debate ends at calling someone ridiculous.

2. I didn't say I was engaged in comparative analysis.

3. You were the one who claimed european states had received no foriegn aid post wwwII. But I guess you aleast acknowledged that they did. So, thats a start. Perhaps the invalidity of comparing the two situations will now follow. Otherwise we might all risk being ridiculous?

[Gimlet]

If Mandela was a terrorist so was George Washington,all both of them wanted was representation and empowerment for their people.

 

Terrorism is an over-used term. It is what it says on the tin. Terrorists are not soldiers or politicians. They are cowards who seek refuge in the cracks between the two from where they harrass the defencless. Seeking independance or the expulsion of an occupying power doesn't make you a terrorist, using violence or the threat of violence against civilians or their property outside a theatre of war to achieve it does. Mandela did precisely that. George Washington, as far as I am aware fought his battles militarily and politically.

[Blunderbuss]

 

Terrorism is an over-used term. It is what it says on the tin. Terrorists are not soldiers or politicians. They are cowards who seek refuge in the cracks between the two from where they harrass the defencless. Seeking independance or the expulsion of an occupying power doesn't make you a terrorist, using violence or the threat of violence against civilians or their property outside a theatre of war to achieve it does. Mandela did precisely that. George Washington, as far as I am aware fought his battles militarily and politically.

 

Interesting thread and debate. Gimlet I'm not necessarily taking issue with anything you've written, but it provokes a few interesting thoughts/discussions. In your view, were French resistance fighters in WW2 who killed local civilians they believed to be "collaborators", terrorists?

[shakari]

My goodness. Your hostile!

1. Its useful to know your level of debate ends at calling someone ridiculous.

2. I didn't say I was engaged in comparative analysis.

3. You were the one who claimed european states had received no foriegn aid post wwwII. But I guess you aleast acknowledged that they did. So, thats a start. Perhaps the invalidity of comparing the two situations will now follow. Otherwise we might all risk being ridiculous?

 

Don't mean to be hostile at all.

 

1) I didn't call anyone ridiculous. I called the comparison ridiculous because it is.

 

2) Neither did I but see directly above.

 

3) I didn't say nothing, I said less and more. However, although they did get aid from the US by way of the MP, they did also have to pay war reparations before the MP came along. (+/- 3 years between the end of the war and the beginning of the MP)

 

Believe me, the truth is the Africans couldn't organise a one car funeral procession and there's not one of 'em (the politicians) that isn't as flaky as a nine bob note...... not even the much lauded Mr Mandela who (for example) died with an estate worth millions and you can bet your life he didn't make that money by saving it up from his prison pay and a few judicious investments!

Edited December 8, 2013 by shakari

[ordnance]

 

No they didn't to be honest. I copied this from Wiki as I can't dig my books out but here are some of the injustices suffered by the Catholics. It's not as bad as apartheid but its still very bad.

I think the difference in N Ireland is there was always a political way forward. There were peaceful political parties the SDLP for example that pushed for change in a peaceful way and condemned violence what ever side it came from. The IRA for example would say their motives were freedom and protecting their community among other things. But their campaign was motivated by sectarianism and by hatred of the Brits as they would call them that would include the one million or so that live in N Ireland that consider themselves British. What they don't like talking about is that they killed more catholics than the police and British army put together. The ones on the loyalist side were no better murdering racketeering drug dealing terrorists just like the IRA. At least Mandela admitted his past unlike some here. PS Did you know that Gerry Adams was never in the IRA.

 

 

Terrorist groups seek to cause widespread disruption, fear and intimidation. They use violence or the threat of violence as a means of publicising their causes, motivating those who might be sympathetic to them and intimidating those who do not sympathise. They often aim to influence government policies and they often reject existing democratic processes, or even democracy itself, as a means of achieving their objectives.

Edited December 8, 2013 by ordnance

[maxie]

 

Terrorism is an over-used term. It is what it says on the tin. Terrorists are not soldiers or politicians. They are cowards who seek refuge in the cracks between the two from where they harrass the defencless. Seeking independance or the expulsion of an occupying power doesn't make you a terrorist, using violence or the threat of violence against civilians or their property outside a theatre of war to achieve it does. Mandela did precisely that. George Washington, as far as I am aware fought his battles militarily and politically.

The American revolutionaries under Washington used tactics against civilians that were ten times worse than Mandela ever committed.

[Ratman2]

Last night thousands of British people were displaced by the largest storm surge ever recorded, a lot of land where I live was under threat of flooding.

 

What do we get instead? Hours of tributes to man whose organization's favourite method of punishment was to put a tyre full of petrol round their victim's body and then setting alight!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

 

Not a man I think should be given hours of eulogy on TV when the entirety of the east coast of this country was under threat!

 

This link is quite graphic, only click on if you're of stout heart.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239201/Necklace-lynchings-shocked-Africa-Agonising-deaths-students-mistaken-thieves-burned-alive-posted-online.html

[Gimlet]

 

Interesting thread and debate. Gimlet I'm not necessarily taking issue with anything you've written, but it provokes a few interesting thoughts/discussions. In your view, were French resistance fighters in WW2 who killed local civilians they believed to be "collaborators", terrorists?

 

To my mind the definition of terrorism is in the word itself: to terrorise - specifically to terrorise a civilian population into pursuading their leaders to change course. It is to hold your enemy hostage rather than fight him; to disarm the parent by threatening the children. The antithesis of diplomacy, a reversal of democracy. When fighting a guerrilla war against a hostile invader against whom your country has declared war, is it terrorism to extend the fight to those civilians who have sided with the enemy? A good question indeed and a fine distinction. I think on balance the Resistance were not terrorists, by virue, if nothing else, of the fact that they were operating in a state of total war where diplomacy has ceased to function. Were France and Germany not at war and the Restistance operated underground killing civilians, French or German, to derail a political course they objected to, yes they would be terrorists.

War is the key. It cancels the rules of civilisation, which is why there is no more grave a step a nation can take. But it should be born in mind that politicians start wars, not soldiers, and to their disgrace, those politicians love to wriggle out of their culpability by blaming and trying soldiers for the deeds of war. A similarly opportunistic and cowardly streak to that which defines the terrorist.

[Dr D]

Don't mean to be hostile at all.

 

1) I didn't call anyone ridiculous. I called the comparison ridiculous because it is.

 

2) Neither did I but see directly above.

 

3) I didn't say nothing, I said less and more. However, although they did get aid from the US by way of the MP, they did also have to pay war reparations before the MP came along. (+/- 3 years between the end of the war and the beginning of the MP)

 

Believe me, the truth is the Africans couldn't organise a one car funeral procession and there's not one of 'em (the politicians) that isn't as flaky as a nine bob note...... not even the much lauded Mr Mandela who (for example) died with an estate worth millions and you can bet your life he didn't make that money by saving it up from his prison pay and a few judicious investments!

 

Brilliant, a sweeping generalisation of every politician on an entire continent. Superb!

 

Edited December 8, 2013 by Dr D

[castletyne]

 

Brilliant, a sweeping generalisation of every politician on an entire continent.

 

 

 

When the continent is Africa its true

Edited December 8, 2013 by castletyne

[shakari]

Dr D

 

It's perfectly true & that's why so much foreign aid money disappears up it's own ****.

 

Having spent more than 3 decades doing business and working there, I've been hustled for bribes by everyone from ministers to game scouts and have taken great pleasure in telling them to voetsak. LOL

 

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about and without meaning to cause offence (though I probably will), you don't. .

[Dr D]

Dr D

 

It's perfectly true & that's why so much foreign aid money disappears up it's own ****.

 

Having spent more than 3 decades doing business and working there, I've been hustled for bribes by everyone from ministers to game scouts and have taken great pleasure in telling them to voetsak. LOL

 

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about and without meaning to cause offence (though I probably will), you don't. .

 

Well thats the first thing you have said that I can agree with. You have no idea who I am or what I do for a living. But your 30 years is supposed to blow all comers out of the water? Not that I am about to disclose it on an open forum, but i am not contributing in ignorance. Still you just stick to your generalisation of every politician in africa from the magreb to the cape. Doesnt seem rationale, but sure what do I know? Edited December 8, 2013 by Dr D

[shakari]

Dr D,

 

I don't care who you are or what you do for a living.........If you knew anything at all about what you were talking about, you wouldn't (for example), have made the utterly ridiculous comment about Botswana not having much corruption etc.

 

I don't pretend to know everything about Africa but I do know more about it than most here & am certain I know a lot more about it than you do.

Edited December 8, 2013 by shakari

[Dr D]

Dr D,

 

I don't care who you are or what you do for a living.........If you knew anything at all about what you were talking about, you wouldn't (for example), have made the utterly ridiculous comment about Botswana not having much corruption etc.

 

I don't pretend to know everything about Africa but I do know more about it than most here & am certain I know a lot more about it than you do.

Botswana? You sure your not confusing me with some else your arguing with. I dont think I expressed and opinion on botswana. Dear oh dear. If only the world was as simple as you appear to have concluded. Anyway despite me never having actually expressed an opinion to date in this discussion it seems your ontology is not to be challenged. So I shall gracefully retire and he with the loudest voice and the...... can have the last say.

[shakari]

Sorry. It was your silly comments about foreign aid & the MP etc that showed you didn't know what you were talking about but either way, enjoy your retirement. LOL!

 

What you actually said was:

 

Thats interesting revisionism with regard to europe and wwwII. Ever heard of the marshall plan. Perhaps you should check out the expenditure and then revise up for the 21st century.

Edited December 8, 2013 by shakari

[Cranfield]

I think this has aired enough.