I guess what originally gave them the right was the fact that they beat the south africans at fighting when they originally settled there?

I'm not saying it was right, I'm saying that both were wrong.


What I'm asking is, Did joining the cycle of violence increase the time it took for south africans to win their freedom? Which leads to the question, did Mandela's involvement in advocating violence prolong their suffering?

And proof? WELL DOCUMENTED!!

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

Sometimes joining the cycle of violence is the only way

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

yeah, he just co-founded the military wing of the anc....

Reggie I've just gone into your proof and it says
"Umkhonto we Sizwe (abbreviated as MK, translated as "Spear of the Nation" was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), co-founded by Nelson Mandela in the wake of the Sharpeville Massacre. Its founding represented the conviction in the face of the massacre that the ANC could no longer limit itself to nonviolent protest; its mission was to fight against the South African government"

Even your proof said they only considered violence as defense after being massacred in sharpville. You need to check your evidence first as it's actually destroying your case.

how is it destroying my case at all? My argument is that the founding of the military wing of the anc could have caused the struggle for freedom to last longer.

Nothing more, nothing less, I do not believe the south african government were right in what they were doing!! 2 wrongs don't make a right.

What are these horrific crimes Blackbeard. Cal has been asking but know one is answering. Some claimed he was the leader of the anc commanding these attacks from jail, which is a lie as he only became president of the anc in 1991.

Reggie so you are saying they weren't supposed to Defend themselves after being massacred?

And fight back after being massacred?

No, I AM ASKING WHETHER STARTING THE MILITARY WING OF THE ANC MADE THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM LAST MUCH LONGER?

The Afrikaners were never gonna give the blacks freedom without the armed struggle. Even you know that.

so, essentially you're saying that al qaeda were right for destroying the world trade center in their fight for freedom? Will osama bin laden be lauded as a force for good in 30 years time?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Reggie (U13390)
posted 3 minutes ago
so, essentially you're saying that al qaeda were right for destroying the world trade center in their fight for freedom? Will osama bin laden be lauded as a force for good in 30 years time?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

they are not the same and are completely unrelated

Reggie, are you an Afrikaaner?

How is it stupid? When mandela was imprisoned you would've said the same thing, no way he would lead the country, as you've said he wasn't made president of the anc until 1991. Both fighting for the same things, both advocating violence, where's the difference?

Wow, that's pretty ignorant, just because I don't agree with violence from ANY side, you seem to think I'm siding with the afrikaans or am afrikaans. So much for learning what Mandela stood for in the end, you clearly know your subject.

The fact you cannot see the difference clearly shows the agenda you have.

You have no clue what black people in SA went through and should be quiet and stop talking garbage.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

yes he was, starting the military wing of the anc was the catalyst for violence from his side, he didn't pull the trigger but he started the organisation that killed many.

I actually also think you are an Afrikaner, there's no way I can accept that someone can be so clueless.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I've repeatedly said that I don't believe in violence from either side. Murder is Murder.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator