If you had, you'd realise that since you and I rarely agree on much, you would – by your own 'definition' – be banned.

You haven't been. So I suggest that your paranoid comment was simply that and didn't involve you thinking and using facts.



Actually, what I did was to ask what should have been done to deal with a regime that behaved in such a manner – that was not an isolated incident.

Nobody has yet made any suggestion based on the situation in South Africa at the time, although some have made efforts to obscure these issues by raising others, elsewhere.

Of course, to attempt to make any suggestion might require some thought.



Apartheid didn't produce just one 'isolated incident' of murderous behaviour by the regime. Brutality, police murder and so forth were rather more regular than that.

If Mandela was a terrorist, what was the regime? It certainly wasn't a legitimate, democratic one – unless you believe that legitimacy does not require democracy, and democracy doesn't require the involvement of all the people, but the exclusion of the majority from politics and from vast swathes of life, simply on the basis of race.

This was a regime that had came up with something as obscene as the 'pencil test' to judge your race if it was not immediately obvious. If a pencil could be held in your hair, you were black; if not, you weren't.

You've made a vague attempt to approach the question (which itself is considerably better than anyone else has made) but it doesn't answer it except to say, in effect: 'well, there must have been another way because there was another way that worked somewhere else'.



Yes: he and others brought about great change. And the armed struggle and the boycott were both important elements in achieving that.

If you have to ask that question of apartheid, then quite apart from anything else, it would suggest that you think that apartheid wasn't really that bad, which itself excuses oppression and much, much more, and suggests that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Terrorism is terrorism.

We can have tyres in SA.


White phosphoros used on the civilians of Fallujah.


Some mustard gas for the Kurds.


A sample of Agent Orange for the Vietnamese.


Or hows about a plane smacking a skyscraper in NY.


Anybody got any favourites?
And seeing as we are on terrorism i've just been looking at some info on the history of lynching in the US.
That will be whites on colored men and children.

Some official documented reasons given, and I poop you not -:

demanding respect
arguing with white man
unruly remarks
being unpopular
voodooism
voting for the wrong party

If you didn't laugh you'd cry.

The little girl in Vietnam ?
It was napalm.

Yup.
They just decimated the rest of the country/side with AO.
Doesn't taste very nice with egg fried rice, apparently.

And here are the cüntz who support this sort of approach?

You have got me thinking Kurtz on the Vietnamese/Cambodian border.

Selma wasn't an isolated incident - the blacks in the southern states were treated equally as badly as the blacks in SA, police brutality was quite normal in states like Alabama. Luther King extracted great change without the need to shoot people - that is the mark of the man and defers far greater status in my view than Mandela.

Great change can be effected without the need for violence, the breakdown of communism in eastern Europe is an example. You are suggesting Mandela and the ANC had no options other than violence, that is not the case, there are always options. Regime change through peaceful protest has happened in numerous countries.

I have asked the question about SA not because I think apartheid wasn't really bad but more - is today's society in SA better or will it descend into tribal genocide like virtually every other country in Africa. You last comment shows your true colours - an individual that needs to resort to insults when her clouded thought processes are challenged, sad very sad indeed.

There are always alternative options but forgive me for assuming that you have never had the levels of violence visited upon you as had the ones that Mintball exampled.
You can sit pontificating in your detached high chair as much as you desire but you would perhaps think a whole lot differently were it your family or loved ones involved.

And in many others it has required violence.

And I asked you a specific question, which you have still not answered.

How would you propose that regime should have been dealt with?



I didn't say anything rude, so cut the faux outrage.

As I said, if you want to play that game, and you decide to concentrate on Africa alone, it looks damned well like an excuse to be a racist barsteward, given the records in other continents. I provided – albeit briefly – examples of how the same arguments could be apllied in Latin America and in Europe. Perhaps you'd care to suggest that feudalism wasn't really much worse than European democracy given what has come with it? No. Didn't think so.

So if you want to prove me wrong, come up with something better than a standard racist apology for apartheid on the grounds of pretending that the current situation is in any way comparable with apartheid.

Are you suggesting I am a racist? if so come out have the courage of your convictions and say so - if not I suggest you clarify exactly what you are inferring.

On SA I have suggested what could have been done by showing examples of how peaceful protest has exacted regime change in countries - outside of Africa - where the populous was treated every bit as bad if not worse than the blacks in SA, so I have answered your question - the fact it doesn't suit your argument isn't my issue - it seems your difficulty with reading/comprehension continues.

Where did I ever suggest living conditions were similar to apartheid? What I asked was have things improved - the same could be argued of Eastern Europe since the dismantling of communism. You need to read what things actually say not what you want it to say.

It is a pity your constant asking for questions to be answered isn't mirrored by your own behaviour - you seldom ever answer questions. Your pronouncements from a perceived on high illustrate your weakness in debate - it would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. For one of the management of the site you set very poor standards of protocol of how debates should be chaired and monitored.