Meat egypt's newest president

[Strike For The South]

You're suffering from cognative dissonance resulting from your loss of Faith and a complete collapse of belief in a Divinely Ordered Universe vs your essentially Christian moral outlook which is predicated on the rejected normative assumptions.

You are less dissonant that you were a year ago though - which indicates either a weakening of your recieved Christian moral outlook, or the gestation of some form of Deistic worldview to buttress the essentials of said outlook.

At least that's the way you look from my reading of your post content, it's not a medical diagnosis.

Unnerving. This leads me to believe you read what other people post. I should try that.

The only good thing that has come out of this thread is the acknowledgement than Nelson Mandela is terrorist scum.

Just like the government which oppersed him. See kids? Tyrrany devalues everything.

[PanzerJaeger]

Just like the government which oppersed him. See kids? Tyrrany devalues everything.

The former, of course, has not been sanctified. Mandela should still be in prison, not an international hero.

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

Unnerving. This leads me to believe you read what other people post. I should try that.

I'd love to be able to tell you it's a learned skill - it isn't. I can't read your feelings (or I couldn't, even if I could see you) so I have to understand your beliefs in order to appreciate how you feel about things.

I mean, sure, if you screamed at me and beat me over the head I would probably get that you wer upset, but I'm extra-extra-manly when it comes to being able to read people.

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

Me next Me next!!1

I really shouldn't but I find myself unable to resist.

The core of your personality seems to be:

Army

The username, the humour, the anecdotes, the preffered method of travel along America's highways being a chopper (the two wheeled kind).

MRD is above all a pragmatic man - he has principles but he's not going to hold on to them just to prove a point if it involves somebody dieing - a mix of the well considered position and the instinctive gut reaction.

Rather tellingly, I don't think I know much or anything about your Civilian life, but I could probably give a fair summation of your service history from your own reports.

More interested on whether a man can get the tracks back on a tank or fix the AirCon for the mess than whose shirt he's lifting or what God he prays to.

How'm I doing?

[Greyblades]

Me next, please.

[Kralizec]

The former, of course, has not been sanctified. Mandela should still be in prison, not an international hero.

Why? Mandela was in prison for almost 30 years. You make the point that none of the white guys responsible for apartheid are receiving praise, but in the interest of reconcilliation, none of them actually served any jail time for what they did.

The ANC's violent actions were perfectly understandable. Wether it can ever be justified is a purely academic question. If you treat people like garbage they will resort to whatever means are at their disposal to rectify things. That a bunch of Europeans and Americans (who, in this case, weren't born or at least not old enough to follow any of this business) will question their actions from an ethical perspective several decades later probably didn't enter their mind.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why? Mandela was in prison for almost 30 years. You make the point that none of the white guys responsible for apartheid are receiving praise, but in the interest of reconcilliation, none of them actually served any jail time for what they did.

The ANC's violent actions were perfectly understandable. Wether it can ever be justified is a purely academic question. If you treat people like garbage they will resort to whatever means are at their disposal to rectify things. That a bunch of Europeans and Americans (who, in this case, weren't born or at least not old enough to follow any of this business) will question their actions from an ethical perspective several decades later probably didn't enter their mind.

They were neither understandable nor justifiable. Violence was not the only path, and surely prolonged the conflict. Gandhi did not bomb innocent civilians. As much of a scumbag as MLK was, he did not have blood on his hands. 'Oppression' never justifies the killing of innocents. Mandela is a vicious killer, and the the ANC's corruption and mediocrity in governing are exactly what the black majority deserves for embracing that violence.

[Fragony]

They were neither understandable nor justifiable. Violence was not the only path, and surely prolonged the conflict. Gandhi did not bomb innocent civilians. As much of a scumbag as MLK was, he did not have blood on his hands. 'Oppression' never justifies the killing of innocents. Mandela is a vicious killer, and the the ANC's corruption and mediocrity in governing are exactly what the black majority deserves for embracing that violence.

It's a bit odd, he has a bit of the status of a saint here, little is done to inform people of what a piece of scum he really is/was. There is also absolute silence about the situation in South-africa, things do not look good for the whites there. White South Africans should come back to the Netherlands I think..

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

They were neither understandable nor justifiable. Violence was not the only path, and surely prolonged the conflict. Gandhi did not bomb innocent civilians. As much of a scumbag as MLK was, he did not have blood on his hands. 'Oppression' never justifies the killing of innocents. Mandela is a vicious killer, and the the ANC's corruption and mediocrity in governing are exactly what the black majority deserves for embracing that violence.

No, they were understandable - just as WWII resistence movements in Freance, Poland, Germany etc. were understandable. That doe not make them right but even so you are equating the character of a man to his actions.

Yes, Mandela formulated a policy of terrorist attacks in SA - but he also fostered a two-way program of peace and reconcilation and he negotiated in good faith with de Klerk. That the ANC does not have any other suitable statesmen is partly to do with it having spent so long as a banned party and partly to do with the post-independence policy of "dumbing down" the black population, mandela being of the last generation to be educated under British rule.

As for the politics of the ANC, in the absence of Western support for an end to Aparteid it is unsurprising that the reformers turned to the Communist Bloc.

[Fragony]

Ya sure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXq...e_gdata_player

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

Ya sure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXq...e_gdata_player

Yuh - cultural ignorance is awsome for maintaining your prejudices Frags.

Maybe you nned to look up the difference between Boers and Whites from the ANC's perspective?

Also, maybe listen to the guy who has family out there?

[Fragony]

Yuh - cultural ignorance is awsome for maintaining your prejudices Frags.

Maybe you nned to look up the difference between Boers and Whites from the ANC's perspective?

Also, maybe listen to the guy who has family out there?

Got family there, it's a mess. Ask your family about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks

This is just scratching the surface by the way

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

Got family there, it's a mess. Ask your family about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks

This is just scratching the surface by the way

Then you no doubt know that the attacks are carried out my poor blacks on rich whites, not on poor whites by rich blacks.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

Genocide watch does believe things have got better and not worse - which is significant given that they are quite alarmist.

[Fragony]

Then you no doubt know that the attacks are carried out my poor blacks on rich whites, not on poor whites by rich blacks.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

Genocide watch does believe things have got better and not worse - which is significant given that they are quite alarmist.

Ha, no way. Living in a gated community doesn't make you rich, just somewhat safer.

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&tb...D3zWToqiL3g8M: what is really going on. The ANC is starving white Africans they have no acces to the aid funds. They have absolutely no hope of getting anything from NGO's, so they shold just call it a quit. Nice try, come back.

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

Ha, no way. Living in a gated community doesn't make you rich, just somewhat safer.

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&tb...D3zWToqiL3g8M: what is really going on. The ANC is starving white Africans they have no acces to the aid funds. They have absolutely no hope of getting anything from NGO's, so they shold just call it a quit. Nice try, come back.

Sorry, how many blacks are starving right now?

This is not a white problem.

Oh - and living in a gated community in SA - yeah you're a lot richer than the average.

[Fragony]

Sorry, how many blacks are starving right now?

This is not a white problem.

Oh - and living in a gated community in SA - yeah you're a lot richer than the average.

You have no idea, whites are deniec acces from all sorts of food programs because of the ANC, they are litteraly starved to death. Deathtoll is around 40.000 right now Afrikaners should just come home, especially Candice Swanenpoel. They have had heir fun against the Brittish but they will die if they stay, enough allready

[Strike For The South]

You have no idea, whites are deniec acces from all sorts of food programs because of the ANC, they are litteraly starved to death. Deathtoll is around 40.000 right now Afrikaners should just come home, especially Candice Swanenpoel. They have had heir fun against the Brittish but they will die if they stay, enough allready

Africa is their home

[Major Robert Dump]

I really shouldn't but I find myself unable to resist.

The core of your personality seems to be:

Army

The username, the humour, the anecdotes, the preffered method of travel along America's highways being a chopper (the two wheeled kind).

MRD is above all a pragmatic man - he has principles but he's not going to hold on to them just to prove a point if it involves somebody dieing - a mix of the well considered position and the instinctive gut reaction.

Rather tellingly, I don't think I know much or anything about your Civilian life, but I could probably give a fair summation of your service history from your own reports.

More interested on whether a man can get the tracks back on a tank or fix the AirCon for the mess than whose shirt he's lifting or what God he prays to.

How'm I doing?

Pretty good, but I am not exactly some military4life type of guy, and find the garrison life quite annoying. I am a lone gumshoe as a civilian. I also like puppies, baby ducks and children. Sig worthy, thanks!!

[Gelatinous Cube]

...and find the garrison life quite annoying

Don't you dare walk around with that cigarette...

[Major Robert Dump]

Don't you dare walk around with that cigarette...

And stay off the grass

[Gelatinous Cube]

And stay off the grass

My dawg, bad.

[Kralizec]

They were neither understandable nor justifiable. Violence was not the only path, and surely prolonged the conflict. Gandhi did not bomb innocent civilians. As much of a scumbag as MLK was, he did not have blood on his hands. 'Oppression' never justifies the killing of innocents. Mandela is a vicious killer, and the the ANC's corruption and mediocrity in governing are exactly what the black majority deserves for embracing that violence.

Non-violent protests didn't stop apartheid laws from being enacted in the post-WW2 years. Maybe if the ANC stuck with non-violent tactics it would have ended in 2 or 3 decades rather than 4, but we don't know, and neither did they- I can't blame them for being impatient. As far as I know the ANC did not embrace killing civilians as a strategy in itself. Civilians did die; but the general idea was to disrupt the government and the economy, not to create casualties for its own sake. In that regard the ANC was different from Hamas, for example.

Mandela's recognition doesn't stem from his activities in his youth but the fact that in his later years he wasn't vindicative against his former enemies and pursued reconcilliation instead. Of course, the ANC leadership after him was largely crap, no argument there.

Ghandi didn't use violence but he's usually regarded as an examplary standard. The situations that these two people faced were quite dissimilar, and while I'd accept that public perception of Mandela is incomplete, calling him scum is going too far.

[Strike For The South]

I thanked you becuase 4 others did

[a completely inoffensive name]

I thanked him because we all need a dose of consequentialism in here from time to time.

[Fragony]

Non-violent protests didn't stop apartheid laws from being enacted in the post-WW2 years. Maybe if the ANC stuck with non-violent tactics it would have ended in 2 or 3 decades rather than 4, but we don't know, and neither did they- I can't blame them for being impatient. As far as I know the ANC did not embrace killing civilians as a strategy in itself. Civilians did die; but the general idea was to disrupt the government and the economy, not to create casualties for its own sake. In that regard the ANC was different from Hamas, for example.

Mandela's recognition doesn't stem from his activities in his youth but the fact that in his later years he wasn't vindicative against his former enemies and pursued reconcilliation instead. Of course, the ANC leadership after him was largely crap, no argument there.

Ghandi didn't use violence but he's usually regarded as an examplary standard. The situations that these two people faced were quite dissimilar, and while I'd accept that public perception of Mandela is incomplete, calling him scum is going too far.

This is of course completely fair

[PanzerJaeger]

Non-violent protests didn't stop apartheid laws from being enacted in the post-WW2 years. Maybe if the ANC stuck with non-violent tactics it would have ended in 2 or 3 decades rather than 4, but we don't know, and neither did they- I can't blame them for being impatient. As far as I know the ANC did not embrace killing civilians as a strategy in itself. Civilians did die; but the general idea was to disrupt the government and the economy, not to create casualties for its own sake. In that regard the ANC was different from Hamas, for example.

Mandela's recognition doesn't stem from his activities in his youth but the fact that in his later years he wasn't vindicative against his former enemies and pursued reconcilliation instead. Of course, the ANC leadership after him was largely crap, no argument there.

Ghandi didn't use violence but he's usually regarded as an examplary standard. The situations that these two people faced were quite dissimilar, and while I'd accept that public perception of Mandela is incomplete, calling him scum is going too far.

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that Mandela's ANC did not know civilians would be killed in their operations or that a utilitarian view on terrorist attacks killing civilians is appropriate if you deem the cause justifiable?

[Tiaexz]

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that Mandela's ANC did not know civilians would be killed in their operations or that a utilitarian view on the killing of civilians is appropriate if you deem the cause justifiable?

There is an alternative of "Hey, there is a bunch of people in a hotel, lets blow them up for a statement and kill as many as possible" to "Let's disrupt that army communications tower" and finding out a soldier near by had it fall on top of their head. There is purposefully targeting people to kill for scare tactics/make a statement (Bin Laden/Hamas/etc), the other is disrupting infrastructure with unfortunate causalities.

Your statements miss out "intent" behind the cause of action.

[HoreTore]

There is an alternative of "Hey, there is a bunch of people in a hotel, lets blow them up for a statement and kill as many as possible" to "Let's disrupt that army communications tower" and finding out a soldier near by had it fall on top of their head. There is purposefully targeting people to kill for scare tactics/make a statement (Bin Laden/Hamas/etc), the other is disrupting infrastructure with unfortunate causalities.

Your statements miss out "intent" behind the cause of action.

Apartheid was a horrible regime.

Any action against them is a good action in my book. The regime was illegitimate, which makes all their supporters legitimate targets. Screw 'em.

The reason Mandela is up there with Havel and Gandhi, however, is of course not what he did before he got arrested, but what he did afterwards.

The few people who have managed to dismantle a dictatorship without blood in the streets should be celebrated.

[Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla]

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that Mandela's ANC did not know civilians would be killed in their operations or that a utilitarian view on terrorist attacks killing civilians is appropriate if you deem the cause justifiable?

According to Mandela they had a sort of "sliding scale" that moved from sabatarge up to direct attacks on the military and then other state organs. The judgement was that if they'd moved up the direct attacks (which they did) then that was because the situation was so dire they were justified accepting some collateral damage.

It's important to understand that the ANC was treated as a terrorist organisation even when it wasn't one. People started being beaten and imprisoned without serious charges from the beginning, and then it got worse.

[gaelic cowboy]

mandela is bad mmkay

nah ah he is right on

Oh no he isnt

Oh no you didnt go there

Ah the joys of having your revolution before mass market tabloids, tv, facebook, twitter and partisan blogs.