frogwoman
Let them eat newts
erm...
what about the "terrorists" of the ANC, fighting against the apartheid regime in south africa?
Nice to see our allies respecting human rights
- Thread starter frogwoman
- Start date
erm...
what about the "terrorists" of the ANC, fighting against the apartheid regime in south africa?
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Weren't Israel allied with them, selling them guns etc despite the embargo?
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
in November 1938, a terrorist shot dead the ambassador for a democratically elected government ... and of course, the state had a right to use force to strike back against them, and the fifth column who were the supporters of this criminal gang, to protect their country from attack
later on, that same sovereign state had to bomb, starve and imprison terrorists who were trying to undermine its national security in the middle of a war, which was a battle for its very survival ... and the survival of the people themsleves
Sleater: Of course soveriegn nations do not always act in the correct manner but when it comes to terrorism, most bets are off.
The only question then, is the one posed by Frog:
Frog: "What about the ANC in S. Africa?": So what? Because their ultimate goal (apart from heir ogirinal Marxist nonsense) was righteous did not excuse ANY violent attack that aimed for non-military injuriy, death, or destruction.The ANC DID commit such acts and publicly adhered to it.
I find it interesting that people always try and excuse brutal terrosim. For example, I believe you and I have already discussed when and why HAMAS began its so called "Suicide Bombings." But do you reme,ber when I explained why there were Jewish terrorists in pre statehood Israel?
From 1920 to 36, Arabs launched attack after attack at non-combatants, and in 36 Jews finallly offered their first counter strike.
I am usre, from our past discussions, that you would not excuse those Jewish terrorists would you? So then, how could you excuse the ANC? Because they suffered through atrocitis themselves? Because their goals were PC?
Sleater: "Wasn't Israel allied with S. Africa, selling them guns in the Apartheid Era?": Yes, sadly we were but like other nations we make tactical alliances and S. Africa is alot closer to us than say, the UK. We needed a foothold on the continent.
We also had a more pressng reason that some know about, allegedly involving a S. African island in the Indian Ocean but I am not allowed to discuss thaty for obvious reasons.
It is very, very rare that you will find ideological alliances between nations. Even Russia and Serbia has its reasons (other than the stated Slavic Brotherhood nonsense).
And yet I wish the alliance never happened. That we were considered whites in the country is amazing given our varied shades, and the fact that most of us have never been treated as whites, and alot of us do not even consider the whitest shade of us (I am very light as opposed to both my parents) to be "whites."
Regardless of Jews' social position there, we should not have come close to any enetity that opresses people the way S. African whites did.
Frog: "Ambassador killed in 38, etc, etc.":F your suggesting the incident of a young Jewish man killing the Nazi Ambassadr in PAris, it was in 39, not 38.
More troubling is your suggestion that the Nazi excuse that many Jews were terrorists thus rationalising their atrocious treatment of Jews, that is just too troubling for me to consder.
If instead, yes, you are referring to the incident but are trying to show that all nations can abuse thise rationale, the rationale of fighting terror allows this or that...your example is so far off as in relation to the Turks and this situation as to worry me (about your grasp of history and geopolitics).
PKK has been killing innocent Turks for decades. Have the Turks always actged correctly? Nope. Does PKK have a rationale that makes sense? Yep. In fact I agree with their cause, just not their methods. I respect the rights of inncoent Turks to not haver to fear bombings and random shootings.
As for inncoent Kurds now being hurt in Iraq, turn to your leadership which offers PKK a safe haven for cross border attacks.
The only question then, is the one posed by Frog:
Frog: "What about the ANC in S. Africa?": So what? Because their ultimate goal (apart from heir ogirinal Marxist nonsense) was righteous did not excuse ANY violent attack that aimed for non-military injuriy, death, or destruction.The ANC DID commit such acts and publicly adhered to it.
I find it interesting that people always try and excuse brutal terrosim. For example, I believe you and I have already discussed when and why HAMAS began its so called "Suicide Bombings." But do you reme,ber when I explained why there were Jewish terrorists in pre statehood Israel?
From 1920 to 36, Arabs launched attack after attack at non-combatants, and in 36 Jews finallly offered their first counter strike.
I am usre, from our past discussions, that you would not excuse those Jewish terrorists would you? So then, how could you excuse the ANC? Because they suffered through atrocitis themselves? Because their goals were PC?
Sleater: "Wasn't Israel allied with S. Africa, selling them guns in the Apartheid Era?": Yes, sadly we were but like other nations we make tactical alliances and S. Africa is alot closer to us than say, the UK. We needed a foothold on the continent.
We also had a more pressng reason that some know about, allegedly involving a S. African island in the Indian Ocean but I am not allowed to discuss thaty for obvious reasons.
It is very, very rare that you will find ideological alliances between nations. Even Russia and Serbia has its reasons (other than the stated Slavic Brotherhood nonsense).
And yet I wish the alliance never happened. That we were considered whites in the country is amazing given our varied shades, and the fact that most of us have never been treated as whites, and alot of us do not even consider the whitest shade of us (I am very light as opposed to both my parents) to be "whites."
Regardless of Jews' social position there, we should not have come close to any enetity that opresses people the way S. African whites did.
Frog: "Ambassador killed in 38, etc, etc.":F your suggesting the incident of a young Jewish man killing the Nazi Ambassadr in PAris, it was in 39, not 38.
More troubling is your suggestion that the Nazi excuse that many Jews were terrorists thus rationalising their atrocious treatment of Jews, that is just too troubling for me to consder.
If instead, yes, you are referring to the incident but are trying to show that all nations can abuse thise rationale, the rationale of fighting terror allows this or that...your example is so far off as in relation to the Turks and this situation as to worry me (about your grasp of history and geopolitics).
PKK has been killing innocent Turks for decades. Have the Turks always actged correctly? Nope. Does PKK have a rationale that makes sense? Yep. In fact I agree with their cause, just not their methods. I respect the rights of inncoent Turks to not haver to fear bombings and random shootings.
As for inncoent Kurds now being hurt in Iraq, turn to your leadership which offers PKK a safe haven for cross border attacks.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Krystallnacht occurred in 1938 and that incident was what sparked it off.
I'm not "rationalising their treatment of Jews". I am making the point that I consider these so-called terrorists of World War 2, may their name be blessed and the ANC to be martyrs and heroes against apartheid, fascism and Nazism.
My point is that many of the brave and noble fighters against fascism such as the Partisans would be considered "terrorists" today had they lived and had Hitler's regime been around today. You are the one who made that suggestion that the brutal actions of a state can be justified against "terrorists" and against a community where terrorists are from, not me.
Stauffenberg would have been a terrorist as would most of the French Resistance. People like my mum's great uncle would have been in trouble for "inciting terrorism" simply because they knew what was going and advocate the overthrow of Hitler without violent resistance, but did not condemn it. All of these brave people who were doing the best they could, for Jews, for every other ethnic group Hitler hated and for the world, would have been labelled as terrorists had Hitler's regime existed today.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
My uncle spent ten years in jail for Plotting to blow up a TV station. He would be considered a "terrorist" by you, no? Even though had he succeeded he would not have inflicted any civilian casualties. His aim was to disrupt the racist propaganda machine of the South African regime.
I am proud of what he did even though it's considered terrorism. And let me tell you this, that if this country ever became an apartheid regime or a persecutor of Jews or any other group, I would want to do the same thing myself and would probably join a terrorist organisation, although I would never be involved in attacks on any civilians.
I am proud of what he did even though it's considered terrorism. And let me tell you this, that if this country ever became an apartheid regime or a persecutor of Jews or any other group, I would want to do the same thing myself and would probably join a terrorist organisation, although I would never be involved in attacks on any civilians.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Nothing to do with being PC or not, I support what the ANC did because of the actions of the South African state, in treating black people so appallingly, does the word Sharpesville mean anything to you?? - because my uncle was jailed by the South African state and my mum's family actually got death threats down the phone, my mum's mum (an old woman in her 60s) was arrested sevreal times by the filthy fash running SA at that time, because I think that the apartheid regime was illegitimate and illegal, as well as pointless and cruel. and i fully support and stand by the actions taken by the ANC at that time ...
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I know you are, and who know's, the way things are going that time may yet be upon us, in which case the first ones they'll be rounding up are the ones who've made statements like that online... keep your powder dry if you're serious eh
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Yep, South Africa, Israel and Taiwan formed an alliance out of necessity, nothing wrong with Taiwan, the reason it was allied with those was because very few countries recognise it (or want to recognise it) so even though it is a democratic country and has nothing wrong with it, it was forced to ally itself to states which had dodgy pasts, because no other state was willing to risk the wrath of china (which even then was something of a minor superpower) by formally recognising it as an independent nation.
the PRC was viewed anyway as the "successor state" in the one china policy ... whereas to recognise taiwan means that you don't recognise the prc and what state doesn't want to do that? were taiwan ever to renounce its claims to the mainland of China it would be a declaration of independence and thus war ...
Russia's interest in the Balkans and serbia in particular is more to do with establishing a foothold there and countering the threat from the US and what it sees as Nato expansionism into its sphere of influence (which is somewhat accurate tbh). The Kremlin elite don't really give a shit about serbia any more than the USA gives a shit about Britain, beyond the fact that because of the historical cultural links between the two countries they are an easier ally to deal with ...
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
I know you are, and who know's, the way things are going that time may yet be upon us, in which case the first ones they'll be rounding up are the ones who've made statements like that online... keep your powder dry if you're serious eh
Lol you're right there although they might think that if I was serious there'd be no way i'd be stupid enough to say it online, so I'd be ignored
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
free spirit
more tea vicar?
ah - the old double bluff eh... but that'd require sophistication of thinking... these muppets would lock up as many as possible, ask questions later - like guantanamo, well we can't let them out coz they might be terrorists, but we can't put them on trial coz we've got no evidence, so we'll just keep them locked up indefinately just in case.Lol you're right there although they might think that if I was serious there'd be no way i'd be stupid enough to say it online, so I'd be ignored
anyway I've probably said too much already... anyone asks I wasn't here...
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
ah - the old double bluff eh... but that'd require sophistication of thinking... these muppets would lock up as many as possible, ask questions later - like guantanamo, well we can't let them out coz they might be terrorists, but we can't put them on trial coz we've got no evidence, so we'll just keep them locked up indefinately just in case.
anyway I've probably said too much already... anyone asks I wasn't here...
WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM
god some of the statements i've made online, i wouldn't want any police reading
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I'm kinda glad loads of the really old threads got wiped years ago...WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM
god some of the statements i've made online, i wouldn't want any police reading
they've got their files, of that I'm sure - well actually i know for a fact they've got one on me coz I'm down as known associate status for someone else who'd managed by some sculduggery to sneak a peak at their file.
I vere between keeling my head down mode and fuck em and their law* mode...
/derail
*prodigy
Frog: "Date of assasination and incidents afterwrd.": You got m there, so much for memory. Actually, I almost always try to recofnim dates, etc and in this case did so and relied on Wiki which lists it as 38 and 309 if you can imagine. the assasination listed as 39, incidents in 38, go figure.
I always rail against Wiki for its lack of editorial oversight but lately have been priasing it for doing a btter job. Improvement is ongoing perhaps.
Anyway, glad you recified it, as CORRECT info is the only thing that counts.
However, again, this riases actual troubling issues. Equating anything Nazi in terms of their genocidal acts aginst various groups is demeaning and to see a Jew do it, albeit not out of malice, troubles me. Anyway, you always have the right to your opinion.
Perhaps just as trobuling is your unequivocal praise of the ANC. To allow that the organisation has changed and is now certainly not a terrorist entity is common sense.
To deny that they MURDERED innocent men, women, and CHILDREN is just as non-sensical. If you offer unequivocal support to an organisation that commits such ATROCITIES you are not much better (no offence if I am misreading you).
Ahhh, perhaps (think so) you ARE not offering unequivocal support but sure sounds like it. English s funny. OK, so your point is that had WWII partisans been on the losing side they would have been termed "terrorists."
This seems like it makes common sense but when you examne it it is like Swiss Cheese. Partisans DID take actions against the Axis that DD caue loss of innocent life but that was NEVER their goal. For example, unlike RAF bombers, did they ever have an objective like blowing up the centers of every town in an Objective Grid? No, they did not set out to murder German civilains.
The "Victorious" Germans.":Yes, of course they would attempt to portray the Prtisans in this ligght but the truth does not change. We know for a fact that the ANC, nominally under Mandela (although he was already locked up for property destruction,etc) DID MURDER.
It is no due to propaganda and in fact the ANC has been in power for quite awhile.
"Brutal action of a state against terrorists.": Absolutely, kill the lot of them. If they aim to harm innocent people, that is people not in uniform, and not representing the state officialy, then erase them.
"Brutal action against communities where terrorists are from...":That is a War Crime and I have never advocated any such thing, nor would I.
"Frog's uncle spent 10 years in stir for planning on blowing up a Tv Station, would Rachamim consider him a terrorist?": If it was not an Army Station, which do exist in some places, of course I would not only want him jailed, but executed if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
How many might have died by his intended and selfish actions?
Sorry that he was related to you but I would feel the same way were he my Dad or my son. Terrorism has NO excuse. How do you know he would not have inflicted injuries? Because the station was closed? No janitors? No security personel? That would be far fetched.
Attacking a Ministry of Propaganda is one thing, attacking a privately held media station is quite another.
"Frog would become a terrorist...": Look, I enjoy talking with you, please do not dig yourself into a hole. I would hope you realised that authorities monitor these sites and just using the phrase you did is enough to score a hit on the US programs, let alone Israeli which are a few times more effieicnet. I am sure that your nation also monitors websites, and runs programs for seemingly random phrases and words.
I always rail against Wiki for its lack of editorial oversight but lately have been priasing it for doing a btter job. Improvement is ongoing perhaps.
Anyway, glad you recified it, as CORRECT info is the only thing that counts.
However, again, this riases actual troubling issues. Equating anything Nazi in terms of their genocidal acts aginst various groups is demeaning and to see a Jew do it, albeit not out of malice, troubles me. Anyway, you always have the right to your opinion.
Perhaps just as trobuling is your unequivocal praise of the ANC. To allow that the organisation has changed and is now certainly not a terrorist entity is common sense.
To deny that they MURDERED innocent men, women, and CHILDREN is just as non-sensical. If you offer unequivocal support to an organisation that commits such ATROCITIES you are not much better (no offence if I am misreading you).
Ahhh, perhaps (think so) you ARE not offering unequivocal support but sure sounds like it. English s funny. OK, so your point is that had WWII partisans been on the losing side they would have been termed "terrorists."
This seems like it makes common sense but when you examne it it is like Swiss Cheese. Partisans DID take actions against the Axis that DD caue loss of innocent life but that was NEVER their goal. For example, unlike RAF bombers, did they ever have an objective like blowing up the centers of every town in an Objective Grid? No, they did not set out to murder German civilains.
The "Victorious" Germans.":Yes, of course they would attempt to portray the Prtisans in this ligght but the truth does not change. We know for a fact that the ANC, nominally under Mandela (although he was already locked up for property destruction,etc) DID MURDER.
It is no due to propaganda and in fact the ANC has been in power for quite awhile.
"Brutal action of a state against terrorists.": Absolutely, kill the lot of them. If they aim to harm innocent people, that is people not in uniform, and not representing the state officialy, then erase them.
"Brutal action against communities where terrorists are from...":That is a War Crime and I have never advocated any such thing, nor would I.
"Frog's uncle spent 10 years in stir for planning on blowing up a Tv Station, would Rachamim consider him a terrorist?": If it was not an Army Station, which do exist in some places, of course I would not only want him jailed, but executed if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
How many might have died by his intended and selfish actions?
Sorry that he was related to you but I would feel the same way were he my Dad or my son. Terrorism has NO excuse. How do you know he would not have inflicted injuries? Because the station was closed? No janitors? No security personel? That would be far fetched.
Attacking a Ministry of Propaganda is one thing, attacking a privately held media station is quite another.
"Frog would become a terrorist...": Look, I enjoy talking with you, please do not dig yourself into a hole. I would hope you realised that authorities monitor these sites and just using the phrase you did is enough to score a hit on the US programs, let alone Israeli which are a few times more effieicnet. I am sure that your nation also monitors websites, and runs programs for seemingly random phrases and words.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Hang on I'm not about to go and join al-Qaeda am I? A Nazi regime doesn't exist in the UK, and God willing it never will. But IF it did then I and I suspect a great many other people would resist and some of that resistance would be defined as terrorism.
The ANC regarded them selves as carrying out a legitimate armed struggle against an aggressor, the apartheid regime of South Africa. Did they do some things wrong? Yep. They weren't angels, they were people carrying out an armed campaign. Was this justified in terms of the end result? Yep. Absolutely. It was quite obvious that the South African state was not going to capitulate without a fight. It managed to get around arms embargoes and other restrictions placed on it. It was the wealthiest state in Africa meaning that other African countries could not afford not to deal with and do business with it.
You are forgetting the evil nature of the state in South Africa. The censorship. The daily humiliation the black citizens had to go through every day. The vile racist propaganda, the secret plans drawn up for a "Final Solution" under Verwoed which, thank God he never completed, dying before he could. The attempts by the South African government to present an acceptable image to the outside world, providing the Coloured and Indian groups with "parliaments" which did nothing. The Homelands policy. The fact that Botha said that there was no point teaching a black child maths because he wouldn't have any use for it. To criticise the ANC for a few bombs here and there diminishes the malignant nature of the South African government under apartheid and serves to somewhat justify their actions.
I'm aware the ANC has changed. They haven't been perfect in government and there are HUGE problems in South Africa. But they are a million times better than what they had before and a lot of those problems are linked to the apartheid legacy.
The ANC regarded them selves as carrying out a legitimate armed struggle against an aggressor, the apartheid regime of South Africa. Did they do some things wrong? Yep. They weren't angels, they were people carrying out an armed campaign. Was this justified in terms of the end result? Yep. Absolutely. It was quite obvious that the South African state was not going to capitulate without a fight. It managed to get around arms embargoes and other restrictions placed on it. It was the wealthiest state in Africa meaning that other African countries could not afford not to deal with and do business with it.
You are forgetting the evil nature of the state in South Africa. The censorship. The daily humiliation the black citizens had to go through every day. The vile racist propaganda, the secret plans drawn up for a "Final Solution" under Verwoed which, thank God he never completed, dying before he could. The attempts by the South African government to present an acceptable image to the outside world, providing the Coloured and Indian groups with "parliaments" which did nothing. The Homelands policy. The fact that Botha said that there was no point teaching a black child maths because he wouldn't have any use for it. To criticise the ANC for a few bombs here and there diminishes the malignant nature of the South African government under apartheid and serves to somewhat justify their actions.
I'm aware the ANC has changed. They haven't been perfect in government and there are HUGE problems in South Africa. But they are a million times better than what they had before and a lot of those problems are linked to the apartheid legacy.
You would have someone like that executed for damaging property?
What, if they were a terrorist? You can do whatever you like to them!
(joking, obv.)
Frog: Perhaps we are both misreading each other. Where and when did suggest that you were either a Nazi or Nazi sympathiser. What I said was quite clear.
I want to add that your thoughts, that one struck me as very familiar. I first thought that maybe you or another poster had expressed it in the past. Ithen ealised that you had aped Chomsky almost verbatim.
Out of curiosity, do you also feel that Hezbollah is completely justified in having weapons?
"Was the ANC justified in their end goals?": So, let me understand this. It does not matter what you do, as long as you reach your goal(s)? Please elaborate.
"Quite obvious that the ANC was not going to achieve that goal without violence.": Utter nonsense. Do you think the ANC toppled the Apartheid Regime? Simple economics and political isolation dod that without firing a bullet.
I understand that you live in England,etc. They have had a tiny bt of terrroism over the last couple of decades but the average UK citizen has had absolutely no exposure to it.Tell me, ever see a person blow up? A baby with razor shards sticking out all ovr its face and body? Ho about wiping infant brain matter off of a windshield? THIS IS WHAT TERRORISM IS.
If I have a goal that many consider just, and I just happen to incinerate your baby in pursuit of this goal how justified am I? Malcolm X soundbites are cool but garbage.
Aparthied Era South Africa was the richest nation in South Africa, other nations could not afford not to do business with it.": Here are some facts: Israel has the highest per capita income in the entire Middle East and is richer than all its bordering neighbouring nations, COMBINED. How many of the 33 Arab entities "do business" with it?
What makes you think that I forgot facts about Apartheid Era S. Africa? I am 41 and actually was in the Garden across from K'nesset complaining and demonstrating against Israel's pro-regime policies. I did not need to rely on bombs. I dd not live under the system but was vehemently opposed to it and wanted it gone very badly. Terrorism never solves a damn thing no matter what the fraud Chomsky claims.
I want to add that your thoughts, that one struck me as very familiar. I first thought that maybe you or another poster had expressed it in the past. Ithen ealised that you had aped Chomsky almost verbatim.
Out of curiosity, do you also feel that Hezbollah is completely justified in having weapons?
"Was the ANC justified in their end goals?": So, let me understand this. It does not matter what you do, as long as you reach your goal(s)? Please elaborate.
"Quite obvious that the ANC was not going to achieve that goal without violence.": Utter nonsense. Do you think the ANC toppled the Apartheid Regime? Simple economics and political isolation dod that without firing a bullet.
I understand that you live in England,etc. They have had a tiny bt of terrroism over the last couple of decades but the average UK citizen has had absolutely no exposure to it.Tell me, ever see a person blow up? A baby with razor shards sticking out all ovr its face and body? Ho about wiping infant brain matter off of a windshield? THIS IS WHAT TERRORISM IS.
If I have a goal that many consider just, and I just happen to incinerate your baby in pursuit of this goal how justified am I? Malcolm X soundbites are cool but garbage.
Aparthied Era South Africa was the richest nation in South Africa, other nations could not afford not to do business with it.": Here are some facts: Israel has the highest per capita income in the entire Middle East and is richer than all its bordering neighbouring nations, COMBINED. How many of the 33 Arab entities "do business" with it?
What makes you think that I forgot facts about Apartheid Era S. Africa? I am 41 and actually was in the Garden across from K'nesset complaining and demonstrating against Israel's pro-regime policies. I did not need to rely on bombs. I dd not live under the system but was vehemently opposed to it and wanted it gone very badly. Terrorism never solves a damn thing no matter what the fraud Chomsky claims.
Frogwoman: Had your uncle succeeded he has no idea who would have been in or out of the building. Most TV stations have nighttime personel and at the very least security and/or custodial staff working then. Forgettng all that, what about passerbys?
Would I have him executed? I would do it myself just as I would to people like Goldstein who by the way had a perfect rationale both theologically and to alot of folks, morally. The goal does not change naything nor does the targetting of a building you feel is empty.
The FALN, in NYC did a building about 2 decades ago exactly like that and killed a man,
"Criticising the ANC for a few bombs here and there.":Even one bomb should have had the group annihilated. They were murderers. They knew innocents would die and went ahead.
You have an uncle who was a terrorist but do you have any family who has been victimised directly by terrorists?
Would I have him executed? I would do it myself just as I would to people like Goldstein who by the way had a perfect rationale both theologically and to alot of folks, morally. The goal does not change naything nor does the targetting of a building you feel is empty.
The FALN, in NYC did a building about 2 decades ago exactly like that and killed a man,
"Criticising the ANC for a few bombs here and there.":Even one bomb should have had the group annihilated. They were murderers. They knew innocents would die and went ahead.
You have an uncle who was a terrorist but do you have any family who has been victimised directly by terrorists?
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
Well if anyone would have died then I obviously don't condone it. But he never got a chance. That is NOT what happened. He was grassed up by a mate before he had a chance to do it. And jailed for ten years. He was DELIBERATELY placed in a cell with two Nazi terrorists, two filthy scum of the earth Nazis who were in the AWB, who wanted South Africa even more fascist than it already was (which was saying something). My mum and her family could only see him for fifteen minutes at a time, behind glass. He was in solitary for long periods and he heard the screams of the guy next door to him being tortured to death. One of his best friends was hanged in jail.
Those people are heroes to me because they weren't just willing to talk about anti-fascism they actually walked the walk and they actually did something about it. The same as Bonhoeffer and Stauffenberg, both people who bravely tried to end Hitler's regime, and very nearly succeeded, are heroes to me and people who were fighting for their country and for the world. Too bad they didn't succeed and the SS murdered them.
I don't compare Israel to Nazi Germany by the way. The closest any regime comes to Nazi Germany is probably the one in Burma.
As for Hezbollah I don't support them. I think they are a terrorist organisation and they have some very extreme religious beliefs which I do not agree with. I don't agree with all the Swappies and people like that shouting "We are all Hezbollah" type shite. I don't approve of their methods. However this does not justify bombing the shit out of a sovereign nation just because that organisation happens to be operating there. It would be like the USA bombing the UK because there were terrorists there.
Those people are heroes to me because they weren't just willing to talk about anti-fascism they actually walked the walk and they actually did something about it. The same as Bonhoeffer and Stauffenberg, both people who bravely tried to end Hitler's regime, and very nearly succeeded, are heroes to me and people who were fighting for their country and for the world. Too bad they didn't succeed and the SS murdered them.
I don't compare Israel to Nazi Germany by the way. The closest any regime comes to Nazi Germany is probably the one in Burma.
As for Hezbollah I don't support them. I think they are a terrorist organisation and they have some very extreme religious beliefs which I do not agree with. I don't agree with all the Swappies and people like that shouting "We are all Hezbollah" type shite. I don't approve of their methods. However this does not justify bombing the shit out of a sovereign nation just because that organisation happens to be operating there. It would be like the USA bombing the UK because there were terrorists there.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Now that is bullshit of the highest order.
Why should sovereign nations be able to attack civilians and inflict terror but not other groups?
I don't believe you and I doubt anyone else on this board does either.
frogwoman
Let them eat newts
And yes I do have experience of my family being victimised by terrorists. The terrorists were the South African police and the South African state and their sickening supporters, who would ring my mum's family up and tell them they were going to die, and during the war, the paramilitary organisation called the SS.
My mum's great uncle was murdered by the SS in jail. It was a few weeks before the war was due to end and they killed him for his political views, and because he was involved in a plot to declare Hitler insane. Had he lived a few more weeks it would have been them on trial, not him.
By the way, what economic and political isolation was the South African state subjected to? Sanctions were only imposed on the last few years of the regime, and even then America and Britain refused to apply them until the very end!!
My mum's great uncle was murdered by the SS in jail. It was a few weeks before the war was due to end and they killed him for his political views, and because he was involved in a plot to declare Hitler insane. Had he lived a few more weeks it would have been them on trial, not him.
By the way, what economic and political isolation was the South African state subjected to? Sanctions were only imposed on the last few years of the regime, and even then America and Britain refused to apply them until the very end!!
Frog: "He never got a chance...": BUT HE TRIED. HE TRIED. He TRIED. His attempt was to destruct proprety he did not own and of course had no idea about occupants, and so forth.
"Put in a cell with 2 Nazis.": First, not all cell placements are purposeful. Second, even if it were, sorry, really sorry to say this to you because I respect you, he deserved much worse.
"Burma like Nazis...": Not at all. Nothing even remotely cimilar. They hate the Karen? Some Wa? They have not engaged in systematic genocide, nor have they battled anyone willing to enter into an advantageous (for the gvt) alliance.
They are dirty for sure, as are maybe 90% of all nations but they are not race theorists who seek total annihilation.
"Bombing Lebanom because a terrorist organisation is ensconced there.": Sorry Frog but the Lebanese Govt. defied International Law by not only allowing them and their Syrian and Iranian handlers safe haven, but allowed them full and free participation in the govt and society. They served in govt, and still do.
They were and remain ensconed in heavily populated regions. They continue to offer nonsense propaganda that seeks to destroy Israel...and are merely as they now say in Lebanon, in hudna, meaning a time of strategic truce (altghous it is not a truce becaue they never even agreed to talk to Israel, if Israel would even agree,etc).
What sparked the war in 2006, a war I fought in by the way so that I have a pretty good handle on it? Do you know?
What should the response been? Israel sat on its haunches for about 7 months prior to the way as all of northern Galilee was bombarded by Hez artillery. Israelis, both Jew and Arab (and other) lived in bomb shelters almost nigh and day.
The day in queston? They blew up 2 border Barriers, crossed into Israel (by the way the first Barrier they blew? It is about 100 meters on the Israel side meaning they crosed into the nation before laying the charges on the 1st Barrier.
Then then turned their RPGs onto 2 Hummers full of Reservists, and killed most of a squad, and taking 2 badly wounded Israelis back into Lebanon where they rmeain, certainly already dead, until today.
The response should have been measured? We should shell all of southern Lebanon indiscriminately for almost 7 months, then cross into the country and murder, before kidnapping and disappearing into our civilain population?
Or should we instead adhere to accepted and standard military doctrine? Do you know that before targetting anything remotely non-military (targetted n the first place because Hez utilised apartment buildings to hide Katyas,etc) we would drop leaflet and even called people on landline an mobiles? Even though a house was used a sniper's nest, or worse.
"Put in a cell with 2 Nazis.": First, not all cell placements are purposeful. Second, even if it were, sorry, really sorry to say this to you because I respect you, he deserved much worse.
"Burma like Nazis...": Not at all. Nothing even remotely cimilar. They hate the Karen? Some Wa? They have not engaged in systematic genocide, nor have they battled anyone willing to enter into an advantageous (for the gvt) alliance.
They are dirty for sure, as are maybe 90% of all nations but they are not race theorists who seek total annihilation.
"Bombing Lebanom because a terrorist organisation is ensconced there.": Sorry Frog but the Lebanese Govt. defied International Law by not only allowing them and their Syrian and Iranian handlers safe haven, but allowed them full and free participation in the govt and society. They served in govt, and still do.
They were and remain ensconed in heavily populated regions. They continue to offer nonsense propaganda that seeks to destroy Israel...and are merely as they now say in Lebanon, in hudna, meaning a time of strategic truce (altghous it is not a truce becaue they never even agreed to talk to Israel, if Israel would even agree,etc).
What sparked the war in 2006, a war I fought in by the way so that I have a pretty good handle on it? Do you know?
What should the response been? Israel sat on its haunches for about 7 months prior to the way as all of northern Galilee was bombarded by Hez artillery. Israelis, both Jew and Arab (and other) lived in bomb shelters almost nigh and day.
The day in queston? They blew up 2 border Barriers, crossed into Israel (by the way the first Barrier they blew? It is about 100 meters on the Israel side meaning they crosed into the nation before laying the charges on the 1st Barrier.
Then then turned their RPGs onto 2 Hummers full of Reservists, and killed most of a squad, and taking 2 badly wounded Israelis back into Lebanon where they rmeain, certainly already dead, until today.
The response should have been measured? We should shell all of southern Lebanon indiscriminately for almost 7 months, then cross into the country and murder, before kidnapping and disappearing into our civilain population?
Or should we instead adhere to accepted and standard military doctrine? Do you know that before targetting anything remotely non-military (targetted n the first place because Hez utilised apartment buildings to hide Katyas,etc) we would drop leaflet and even called people on landline an mobiles? Even though a house was used a sniper's nest, or worse.
Sleater:"Nonsense, utter b.s., and so on.": 3 points you respond to and not one fact in any of your response(s). Why waste your time and the thread's space?
So the ANC toppled the regime?
As for you not believing what I said, pefectly fine but please do not be a fool and think you can read the mind of everyone on the site. Speak for yourself and feel assured that about 5 others agree with you wholeheartedly. However I get more than 2 times that number in positive emails each week (on avg) from folks who agree with me and some who actually have extreme views.
They question why I even botrher taking to folks like you , I rely on my personal faith as a rationale and I also find it worthwile to examine every facet. It is indeed a shame that you not.
If you only want to heare your own views, write a blog. Why waste time here? So silly. Almost as silly a person thinking they know what another did 20 years ago, a person them have nevr met. Whatever.
As for the one question you posed, "Why nations should be allowed...," nations have rights enshrined in International Law and treaty. They have the right to defend themselves and their citizens and residents from indiscriminate violence.
Nations like Israel target terrorists, not civiains. The problem of course is that terrorists do not fight man to man, they hide. They hide among the people they pretend to fight for. Nations like Israel have no choice but to try and nutralise , say, a Katya. IF you park your Katya int he parking garage of an apartment building, do not think that you will be allowed to then launch your 12 missiles a salvo with no fear of neutralisation.
I would imaginae... just a stab in the dark since of course I do NOT know you, that you have not lived in fear of your life because of indiscriminate violence. Try it and see if you feel the same.
People who have very, very rarely ever make non-sensical points like yours
So the ANC toppled the regime?
As for you not believing what I said, pefectly fine but please do not be a fool and think you can read the mind of everyone on the site. Speak for yourself and feel assured that about 5 others agree with you wholeheartedly. However I get more than 2 times that number in positive emails each week (on avg) from folks who agree with me and some who actually have extreme views.
They question why I even botrher taking to folks like you , I rely on my personal faith as a rationale and I also find it worthwile to examine every facet. It is indeed a shame that you not.
If you only want to heare your own views, write a blog. Why waste time here? So silly. Almost as silly a person thinking they know what another did 20 years ago, a person them have nevr met. Whatever.
As for the one question you posed, "Why nations should be allowed...," nations have rights enshrined in International Law and treaty. They have the right to defend themselves and their citizens and residents from indiscriminate violence.
Nations like Israel target terrorists, not civiains. The problem of course is that terrorists do not fight man to man, they hide. They hide among the people they pretend to fight for. Nations like Israel have no choice but to try and nutralise , say, a Katya. IF you park your Katya int he parking garage of an apartment building, do not think that you will be allowed to then launch your 12 missiles a salvo with no fear of neutralisation.
I would imaginae... just a stab in the dark since of course I do NOT know you, that you have not lived in fear of your life because of indiscriminate violence. Try it and see if you feel the same.
People who have very, very rarely ever make non-sensical points like yours
Frog: On Chomsky, well, anything is possible. It is not as if his thoughts and expressions were at all original.
"Family that were victimised by terrorists.": Sorry Frog, that is not even remotely close. The govt. as not putting bombs all over the country, walking into public places and detonating,etc.
They did engage in covert ops, but not indiscriminate garbage and I am sure that your family was not even remotely close to becoming indiscriminate targets from them.
In Israel, I have 3 kids. Each day, every single day any of them leave their homes (all are in Service now so I should say home or post), they may never return. A very real chance exists that i may never see one or all of them again due to Arab violence.
One could conceivably make the argument that parents in Gaza hold the same fears but the difference is is that Gazans hold the key. We gave htem land, infrastructure, and industry, and they truiied and continue to try and kill us, at times they achieve this goal.
Their ideological brethren on the "WB" also succeed and so on.
Israel as you must know is incredibly small. Where to go? Abandon our land again because of foreign oppressors, becaue make no mistake, even if an Arab can trace their lineage to 630 CE/AD when they first invaded, they came from Hejaz.
How well did Exile work for us Frog? Should we again have no hope aside from a Soviet Oblast stolen from indigenous Siberians? A joke of autonomy?
Should we depend on nations like England? America?
We MUST determine our own futures. We have offered Arabs most of our land (originally), they rejected it. They have Jordan and reject that. They wish for all the land.
To accomplish this, we need to neutralise groups and people who wish to exterminate us. If you think it is at all about wanting a fair share, I ask you to read the Charters and Platforms of all internal terrorist organisations and see what they want.
They want genocide.
"The SS.": Sorry, as atrocious as they were and my mom was victimised by them and had most of her family annihilted by them, they were not terrorists. They were the apparrattus of a sovereign nation which elcted them democratically.
They did not engage in random violence per se, they had actual objectives and well denfined parameters.
"Family that were victimised by terrorists.": Sorry Frog, that is not even remotely close. The govt. as not putting bombs all over the country, walking into public places and detonating,etc.
They did engage in covert ops, but not indiscriminate garbage and I am sure that your family was not even remotely close to becoming indiscriminate targets from them.
In Israel, I have 3 kids. Each day, every single day any of them leave their homes (all are in Service now so I should say home or post), they may never return. A very real chance exists that i may never see one or all of them again due to Arab violence.
One could conceivably make the argument that parents in Gaza hold the same fears but the difference is is that Gazans hold the key. We gave htem land, infrastructure, and industry, and they truiied and continue to try and kill us, at times they achieve this goal.
Their ideological brethren on the "WB" also succeed and so on.
Israel as you must know is incredibly small. Where to go? Abandon our land again because of foreign oppressors, becaue make no mistake, even if an Arab can trace their lineage to 630 CE/AD when they first invaded, they came from Hejaz.
How well did Exile work for us Frog? Should we again have no hope aside from a Soviet Oblast stolen from indigenous Siberians? A joke of autonomy?
Should we depend on nations like England? America?
We MUST determine our own futures. We have offered Arabs most of our land (originally), they rejected it. They have Jordan and reject that. They wish for all the land.
To accomplish this, we need to neutralise groups and people who wish to exterminate us. If you think it is at all about wanting a fair share, I ask you to read the Charters and Platforms of all internal terrorist organisations and see what they want.
They want genocide.
"The SS.": Sorry, as atrocious as they were and my mom was victimised by them and had most of her family annihilted by them, they were not terrorists. They were the apparrattus of a sovereign nation which elcted them democratically.
They did not engage in random violence per se, they had actual objectives and well denfined parameters.
"Apartheid was not ended via sanctions, they only began a few years prior to its end.": It began in the mid 1950s and increased over time until it crushed them.
When did the bombings end? So, you cannot argue that it had anything to do with anything except criminality.
To be honest, it was probably a combination of isolation/economics and civil unrest...not terrorism. to be absolutely honestly, terroirsm most likely prolonged the regime buy offering it a perfect rationale that most logical people would understand and thus it was. I can still remeber the Western press giving it alot of play.
When did the bombings end? So, you cannot argue that it had anything to do with anything except criminality.
To be honest, it was probably a combination of isolation/economics and civil unrest...not terrorism. to be absolutely honestly, terroirsm most likely prolonged the regime buy offering it a perfect rationale that most logical people would understand and thus it was. I can still remeber the Western press giving it alot of play.
Similar threads
