Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (32860)	6/22/2002 10:33:08 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi twfowler; Re: "Finally and most importantly the ANC did not defeat white rule. The whites negotiated it away when they felt they could get a reasonable deal." This is a slight rewrite of history. There was never a letup in ANC terror right up to the point at which negotiations began. After negotiations began, the terror abated, but not before. In other words, the whites negotiated when they saw that the trend was not in their favor, and that they could negotiate a better surrender now than they could at some time in the future. As long as they think that they are winning the war against terrorism (i.e. terrorism is decreasing), the Israelis will never surrender much in the way of land. This is only human nature. In fact the Israelis continued colonizing the occupied territories throughout the recent peace accords. People don't surrender when they think they're winning, and neither the Israelis nor the South Africans are exceptions. As far as your repeated comments that "all South Africans considered themselves one people", this is patently untrue, at least as during apartheid run South Africa. It's such an unimaginable flight of fancy that I don't know how to answer it. But if they were all one people, then why did they have laws discriminating on themselves based on their color? Did they hate themselves? Why didn't South Africa allow blacks on their sports teams? I mean Jesus weeps, what a weak arguing point. And like I've noted before, after the Palestinians and Israelis are united into a single country, they'll cheer the same soccer team in the world cup, just like the South Africans do now. Re: "You point out situations like South Africa and Vietnam where the side with the most military power did not win, but you don't point out any where the issue was settled forcibly by just an uprising and terrorism like that practiced by the Palestinians. ... The situation in South Africa was not settled by force, either an uprising or a war." Of course South Africa is an example where the "issue was settled forcibly by just an uprising and terrorism". The terrorism forced the apartheid rulers to negotiate what was in effect a surrender. Just because a surrender was negotiated doesn't mean that it wasn't forced. The Japanese negotiated a surrender in WW2, as did the Germans in WW1, etc. In fact, most wars are ended with negotiations, not the complete military defeat as seen in Germany in WW2. This is because of the simple fact that when most humans (Hitler was an exception) observe that complete military defeat is inevitable, the negotiation neuron is activated. Re: "It was settled by negotiation after the whites where finally convinced that it wouldn't be the end of the world if someone like Nelson Mandela became president." It's a fact of history that the violence in South Africa went on while the government was negotiating with the ANC. There was no "trust". The apartheid regime could see the trend and negotiated a surrender while they still had some cards on the table to negotiate with. This is a question of historical fact. South Africa began communicating with Nelson Mandela in 1986. Botha met with Nelson Mandela in July of 1989. The ANC didn't renounce violence until August of 1990, six months after Nelson Mandela was released from prison. Negotiations went on for years. As late as 1992 both sides were accusing each other of continuing massacres. There was no trust. It was a surrender situation. The butchery continued throughout the negotiations right up to 1994: anc.org.za Here's Nelson Mandela's letter from prison in 1989 demonstrating that the government was trying unsuccessfully to get the ANC to renounce violence: (Along with the standard issue human BS about what a peaceful group they are, LOL!!! Funny that just about everybody from the Communists to the Ku Klux Klan says the same thing about themselves.) Nelson Mandela, July 5, 1989 ... It is more than ironical that it should be the government which demands that we should renounce violence. ... anc.org.za Here's a letter back to Mandela from De Klerk 3 years later, noting that the violence was continuing: LETTER TO NELSON MANDELA FROM F.W. DE KLERK Dear Mr. Mandela ... For the period November 1991 to June 1992, the ANC was responsible for 186 recorded breaches of the National Peace Accord and the D F Malan Accord. ... 3.The appalling events at Boipatong on 17 June 1992 have once again shown that the situation in South Africa is highly volatile and accompanied by a vicious spiral of violence and counter-violence. ... In this regard the following statements by prominent ANC leaders are highly revealing: Mr. Harry Gwala admitted that the ANC is fighting a war and that the ANC is killing IFP "warlords" and their associates (Natal Witness, 29 April 1992). On 26 April 1992 Mr. George Mathusa (Chairman of the ANC in the Western Transvaal) vowed that Bophuthatswana would be made ungovernable through necklace killings and bombs. Addressing people at a funeral service Mr. Mathusa said: "In South Africa we did it through our necklaces and bombs, we can easily repeat it here." (Cape Times, 27 April 1992). In The Citizen of 23 May 1992 it is reported that Mr. Nelson Mandela said in Helsinki that President De Klerk was involved in the violence in which almost 1,000 people in South Africa have been killed this year. Mr. Mandela told a news conference that it was a serious responsibility to accuse a Head of State of fuelling the violence and the killing of innocent people, but that facts indicated that President De Klerk was involved in this. In The Citizen of 25 May 1992, it was stated that Mr. Mandela, in Geneva, likened the violence in South Africa to the killing of Jews in Nazi Germany. On 16 June 1992 at the Dan Qeqe Stadium, Zwide, Port Elizabeth, Mr. Harry Gwala stated inter alia: "If the only way to our freedom is through bloodletting, so let it be and if we all perish let that happen." He said those who believed the time for armed struggle was over were seriously mistaken, ....(EP Herald, 17 June 1992). 9. The Government recognises that the ANC's suspension of armed action on 6 August 1990 was taken in the interest of a peaceful transition in South Africa. *Unfortunately, this has had no marked effect on violence.* Since the suspension of armed action. numerous cases of MK involvement in establishing self-defence units and renegade self-defence units, as well as armed crimes by MK members, have occurred. Numerous ANC arms caches - in violation of the provisions of the DF Malan Accord - still exist. For example 13 MK arms caches have been uncovered since 2 February 1990. Considering the well documented lack of discipline that MK members have demonstrated, both locally and in foreign countries in the past, the Government must inevitably ask whether the ANC still has any control over arms caches and how many of the murder weapons presently being traded to the highest bidder, originate from ANC caches. anc.org.za I don't see any reason to repeat my arguments about the other things you're saying. But if there is something that you feel is particularly important, do point it out. -- Carl