Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TheTerminator

Nelson Mandela - other subjects

272 posts in this topic

She recommended that SA released Mandela, but not because she cared about his situation. She recommended it purely for reasons of political expediency.

That's a different point altogether, and only she will truly know whether she cared about this.

There are claims that she did nothing and ignored the issue.

 

It is there in black and white, whatever the motives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
I continue to believe, as I have said to you before, that the release of Nelson Mandela would have more impact than almost any single action you could undertake. 
 
The above is the quote, and you are quite right that it is vague, but it is written in the context of things to positively impact his country. It states that she has said this to him before too so it would suggest that she has encouraged his release in the past.

 

 

I hadn't read the whole letter when I wrote that.  I now believe, having read it, that she was trying to steer a course where South Africa would be allowed to reach a decision about what it wanted to look like without any outside involvement.  I think she would have continued to trade with South African even if the movement had not been towards removing apartheid but that her preferred option was that they did remove it.  The line about Mandela now looks to me like good advice from one leader to another: the release of this man will have the greatest impact on your standing in the world, and may buy you a bit more leeway to avoid the ongoing debate about sanctions whilst you sort these other things out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article you linked to claims that she said that the ANC were terrorist. Surely you know that the ANC and Mandela are different things. Mandela may have set up the armed wing of the ANC but he was imprisoned and had no control over it during this time. Few people suggest that he approved of its excesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article you linked to claims that she said that the ANC were terrorist. Surely you know that the ANC and Mandela are different things. Mandela may have set up the armed wing of the ANC but he was imprisoned and had no control over it during this time. Few people suggest that he approved of its excesses.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/12/06/when-conservatives-branded-nelson-mandela-a-terrorist/

We're just playing with words here. It was obvious  at the time what Thatcher thought of Mandela and the anti -apartheid movement. The whole point of the thread is that the Tories are trying to take credit for something that never happened, i.e. that Thatcher was in some way responsible for the freeing of Mandela.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/12/06/when-conservatives-branded-nelson-mandela-a-terrorist/

We're just playing with words here. It was obvious  at the time what Thatcher thought of Mandela and the anti -apartheid movement. The whole point of the thread is that the Tories are trying to take credit for something that never happened, i.e. that Thatcher was in some way responsible for the freeing of Mandela.

You are playing with words not me. If you want to quote someone to support your point-of-view then you could at least quote them accurately and leave off the "it was obvious what Thatcher thought" - you don't know what she thought and neither do I.

 

It's news to me that the Tories were claiming to have had a hand in freeing Mandela. To me it looked like they were paying tribute to a dead elder statesman just as people around the world were doing. The vast majority of whom had nothing to do with his release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that some people on this thread are now using Thatcher as beacon of truth, when all they have done is celebrate since she passed away.

 

Poor form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that some people on this thread are now using Thatcher as beacon of truth, when all they have done is celebrate since she passed away.

 

Poor form.

Quite.  From asserting that Thatcher was entirely responsible for freeing Mandela, the Tories on here are now splitting hairs about whether condemning the ANC and it's members as terrorists means that they weren't condemning Mandela in particular as a terrorist.  But then Tories are never gracious enough to admit when they are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite.  From asserting that Thatcher was entirely responsible for freeing Mandela, the Tories on here are now splitting hairs about whether condemning the ANC and it's members as terrorists means that they weren't condemning Mandela in particular as a terrorist.  But then Tories are never gracious enough to admit when they are wrong.

1) Who asserts that the Thatcher was entirely responsible for Mandela's release? I've never heard anyone claim that.

2) Who, on earth, are these "Tories" on the forum? It seems like anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is a Tory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mandela was a great man but some people have an obsession with South Africa like it was the only "bad" country in the world at the time. In fact democracy was a relatively rare thing at the time; blacks couldn't vote in South Africa but then nobody in Eastern Europe or the USSR or China had a vote that meant anything. Why is one so shocking and the other just par-for-the-course?

 

 

Because it was the only country in the world where society was legally segregated along racial lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tories are never gracious enough to admit when they are wrong.

Trojan, I never realised you were a Tory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was the only country in the world where society was legally segregated along racial lines?

Oh race trumps everything else I forgot that.

 

There were black Africans crossing the border to get into apartheid South Africa but we'll ignore the repression going on those countries because skin colour isn't involved.

 

Added to which repressive countries such as Burma were carrying out more or less open genocide against their ethnic minorities but that's okay because skin colour wasn't an issue.

 

I think Indonesia killed about a third of the population of East Timor but you guessed it, all the victims had the same skin colour as their oppressors.

 

I didn't like apartheid South Africa but they were far from being the worst offenders in the human rights league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh race trumps everything else I forgot that.

 

There were black Africans crossing the border to get into apartheid South Africa but we'll ignore the repression going on those countries because skin colour isn't involved.

 

Added to which repressive countries such as Burma were carrying out more or less open genocide against their ethnic minorities but that's okay because skin colour wasn't an issue.

 

I think Indonesia killed about a third of the population of East Timor but you guessed it, all the victims had the same skin colour as their oppressors.

 

I didn't like apartheid South Africa but they were far from being the worst offenders in the human rights league.

 

 

I'm not saying the other countries weren't awful repressive states. I was attempting to answer your question. Sorry you don't like my answer but to put words into my mouth like "race trumps everything" is a bit rich, as far as I'm concerned class trumps everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was the only country in the world where society was legally segregated along racial lines?

 

Noted socialist P J O'Rourke wrote something similar along those lines in the 1980s.

 

Bloody lefties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying the other countries weren't awful repressive states. I was attempting to answer your question. Sorry you don't like my answer but to put words into my mouth like "race trumps everything" is a bit rich, as far as I'm concerned class trumps everything.

Not only were they awful repressive states but they were, in fact, much worse than South Africa. The South Africans did a lot of dreadful things but genocide wasn't one of them. I don't get the whole South African focus, what else is there apart from skin colour that could make it worse than Burma or Indonesia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noted socialist P J O'Rourke wrote something similar along those lines in the 1980s.

 

Bloody lefties.

When did he become a world authority on repressive regimes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did he become a world authority on repressive regimes?

 

 

Shortly after you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did he become a world authority on repressive regimes?

 

I wasn't aware that he was. Although he was writing from a position of having just been to South Africa and comparing it to many other places he had also just visited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shortly after you

I don't see anyone quoting my opinions as if they are scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that he was. Although he was writing from a position of having just been to South Africa and comparing it to many other places he had also just visited.

That's maybe true but had he ever been to Burma?

 

edit: and for the record I have though that's not the reason for my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite.  From asserting that Thatcher was entirely responsible for freeing Mandela, the Tories on here are now splitting hairs about whether condemning the ANC and it's members as terrorists means that they weren't condemning Mandela in particular as a terrorist.  But then Tories are never gracious enough to admit when they are wrong.

Ha. Anybody who disagrees is a Tory. You are quite simply, a childish baby and not worth discussing this with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's maybe true but had he ever been to Burma?

 

edit: and for the record I have though that's not the reason for my opinion.

 

I'm trying to remember.  He may have been.  I don't have the book any more, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to remember.  He may have been.  I don't have the book any more, sadly.

The thing being that the most repressive regimes don't allow random Westerners to see their excesses. If you want to visit North Korea, for instance, then you would need a valid reason for going there i.e. you hero worship the regime from afar and even then you'll be given a guided tour and not allowed to go where you want to go. This is why writers (and I like PJ O'Rourke) aren't really the people to be asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing being that the most repressive regimes don't allow random Westerners to see their excesses. If you want to visit North Korea, for instance, then you would need a valid reason for going there i.e. you hero worship the regime from afar and even then you'll be given a guided tour and not allowed to go where you want to go. This is why writers (and I like PJ O'Rourke) aren't really the people to be asking.

NBA star Dennis Rodman has been to North Korea recently and sang Happy Birthday to the Great Leader.

 

Some funny people knocking about!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017