Samoth

[75th]

Since the other thread went bye-bye, I just wanted to tidy up our conversation.

Logical fallacy. They were fighting for two completely different causes. This is where ethics and the greater good come in.

I see your point as far as motivation, but the point I was going after is the degree of things that Mandela took part in.

How in the world would he go after a political leader? Colored people couldn't even live in the same communities as the whites. He couldn't exactly just walk into their white town and barge through the front door of the political office.

Yes I realize that, however there are many, many, many ways he and his gang could have gone about enforcing a change that didnt involve targeting innocent children.

"He coordinated a sabotage campaign against military, government and civilian targets, and made plans for a possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid." This isn't a unique case in history. He wasn't fighting for conquest -- he was fighting for his right to live free, for the rights of all his kinsman, and their children's futures. They were fighting for basic human rights, and had every right to do so. Although it is unfortunate it had to go that far, these whites would be damned if they were going to give up their whites-only drinking fountains.

Obviously it is far from being a unique case, which is a point I was going to have gotten at. How many instances, with characteristic that mirrored this past crisis, was victory accomplished without raping women and targeting children? There have been many, albeit some do not revolve around the question of skin color, but nonetheless I totally understand violence as a means to an end, but the degree of which he and his cronies unleashes this on a civilian population is unforgivable.

I'm going to ignore the raping part without any references, but again I say: for those who have never experienced oppression, segregation, or slavery, it is hard to relate. Such actions were necessary for this fight against people who would give you less rights that animals recieve today. These men were the superior race, and you, the dog. You would fetch, sit, and roll over upon the master's command or else be shot. I ask you: would you kill the son of a man who would one day grow up to treat your children as slaves? What if killing this child would give you the chance to one day live as an equal with the same god-given rights as everyone else in the world? Or would you cower and accept the inferior, sub-human rank bewtowed upon yourself and your family by those that think they are superior beings due to lesser pigmentation in their skin?

Necessary according to whom? You? Him?

You pose this hypothetical question as if its cut and dry: either kill kids, or remain a slave. That doesnt make sense.

And again, throwing in the fact that said people were oppressed, slaves, etc. If we give show them quarter on the torture, rape, and murder of innocent civilians, then where does the leniency stop?

He fought for human equality and to free the black people from the leashes of white supremacists. What part of this do you not understand? This isn't inner-city Chicago where you can get a welfare check or move to another city. They were horded like animals because of their skin color. They were given no rights, no vote, little education, and had to stick to black beaches, black hospitals, and work only in black towns.

I understand it perfectly. I think the kink in the chain between you and I derives from the fact that I personally dont see how anybody can condone bombing an elementary school and raping innocent women no matter who is in charge. There is always another way to make your point. Again, its not that I do not frown upon violence in situations where it is warranted, but I see a limit...it seems that you do not.

If you honestly think that because he was held down by whitey that its understandable that he bombed children and raped women then we may just have to agree to disagree.

 

[sawastea]

 

[75th]

Shit I forgot that.

 

[samoth]

Since the other thread went bye-bye, I just wanted to tidy up our conversation.

What?! Why?

I'm guessing someone didn't like our discourse******* eh, nm, I bet BB deleted it himself. I don't see that one being totally deleted, not even just locked, as it was a clean discourse.

Dammit BB, lol.

 

[75th]

What?! Why?

I'm guessing someone didn't like our discourse******* eh, nm, I bet BB deleted it himself. I don't see that one being totally deleted, not even just locked, as it was a clean discourse.

Dammit BB, lol.

LOL and thanks for the message. Its interesting to actually be able to debate this with someone who doesnt resort to childish name calling.

But like I said, given your expressed views, we probably will both die thinking the other person has it wrong.

 

[Lestat]

deleted threads suck

 

[75th]

deleted threads suck

As does having a platinum membership that only works 60 minutes out of every day.

It was a gift, too.

 

[BrothaBill]

What?! Why?

I'm guessing someone didn't like our discourse******* eh, nm, I bet BB deleted it himself. I don't see that one being totally deleted, not even just locked, as it was a clean discourse.

Dammit BB, lol.

 

[Lestat]

As does having a platinum membership that only works 60 minutes out of every day.

It was a gift, too.

try the support link

 

[75th]

Hahahaha.

 

[75th]

try the support link

Twice.