Real World Event Discussions

Questions that conservatives can't answer

POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 23:15
VIEWED: 19339
PAGE 14 of 16

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, October 11, 2014 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

There's no internationally agreed-upon definition of terrorism, but I would say it depends on whether the act of violence targeted civilians or not.

So by that definition, Hiroshima, Nagasaka and Dresden were all acts of terrorism committed by Allied forces.

CAVETROLL

Saturday, October 11, 2014 5:15 AM

Quote:

The leader of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, Nelson Mandela, was to be jailed for life for sabotage.
Seven other defendants, including the former secretary-general of the banned African National Congress (ANC), Walter Sisulu, were also given life prison sentences.

Crowds gathered silently outside the court building in Pretoria's Church Square waiting for the verdict to be handed down. Hundreds of police patrolled the area.

The Rivonia trial - named after the suburb of Johannesburg where several of the defendants were arrested - began eight months ago, with Mandela, 46, and his co-defendants proudly confessing their guilt to plotting to destroy the South African state by sabotage.

As members of the ANC - the main African nationalist movement - they have campaigned for an end to the oppression of black South Africans.

But the movement was banned in 1960 following the Sharpeville massacre and campaigners decided they had no choice but to resort to violent means.

Struggle for equal rights

Mandela - a lawyer by training - told the court earlier: "I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation and oppression of my people by the whites."

His co-accused included: Walter Sisulu, Dennis Goldberg, Govan Mbeki, Raymond Mhlaba, Elias Mosoaledi, Andrew Mlangeni - all ANC officials and Ahmed Kathrada, the former leader of the South African Indian Congress.

Lawyer for the defendants, Harold Hansen QC said: "These accused represent the struggle of their people for equal rights. Their views represent the struggle of the African people for the attainment of equal rights for all races in this country."

But the judge, President Quartus de Wet, said he was not convinced by their claim to have been motivated by a desire to alleviate the grievances of the African people in this country.

Judge de Wet said: "People who organize revolution usually plan to take over the government as well through personal ambition."

However, he stopped short of the imposing the supreme penalty of death.

The convicted men were cheered as they left court in a police lorry. The crowd was dispersed without any serious incident.[/quote
Just goes to show you, half measure accomplish nothing.

Your turn to answer a question. How do you defend Winning Mandela's acknowledged advocacy for necklacing? (For those that don't know, necklacing is murdering people by placing a gasoline filled tire around the victim's neck and setting it on fire.)

1/20/2017, the end of an error.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KPO

Saturday, October 11, 2014 5:25 AM

Quote:
Guerilla Warfare is against military or government targets.

And?

Quote:
So how do you claim that Mandela's targeting of civilians for violence and sabotage does not fit your definition of terrorism?

Show me an instance of Mandela targeting civilians (as I've asked about a dozen times) and we'll proceed from there.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Saturday, October 11, 2014 5:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

There's no internationally agreed-upon definition of terrorism, but I would say it depends on whether the act of violence targeted civilians or not.

So by that definition, Hiroshima, Nagasaka and Dresden were all acts of terrorism committed by Allied forces.

I was answering according to your premise you outlined earlier: "If you live in a violent, oppressive state and commit or organise commit acts of violence with the intent of overthrowing aforesaid state..." Allied forces were not involved in a guerrilla struggle against an oppressive government, as per your original premise. My definition of terrorism does not include actions by governments. Nazi/Japanese atrocities were not 'terrorism', for example.

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Saturday, October 11, 2014 5:37 AM

Quote:
Just goes to show you, half measure accomplish nothing.

Meaning?

Quote:
Your turn to answer a question.

Did you answer mine somewhere?? Are you trying to say that sabotage is equivalent to terrorism?

Quote:
How do you defend Winnie Mandela's acknowledged advocacy for necklacing?

I wouldn't defend anyone advocating that.

It's not personal. It's just war.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, October 11, 2014 5:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

I was answering according to your premise you outlined earlier: "If you live in a violent, oppressive state and commit or organise commit acts of violence with the intent of overthrowing aforesaid state..." Allied forces were not involved in a guerrilla struggle against an oppressive government, as per your original premise. My definition of terrorism does not include actions by governments. Nazi/Japanese atrocities were not 'terrorism', for example.

I didn't mention guerrilla struggle in my question. You stated that if civilians were targeted it was probably terrorism. So it appears that according to your definition, terrorism would be when civilians are targeted by non government forces, as opposed to civilians targetted by government forces.

So would the French Resistance be considered terrorists as they targeted civilians for reprisal?

Would the Jewish militia be considered terrorists for their actions during and post WW2 in Palestine, as they targeted civilians?

was the tarring and feathering of loyalists during the American War of Independence considered acts of terrorism?

KPO

Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:13 AM

Quote:
You stated that if civilians were targeted it was probably terrorism.

Within the outlines of your premise, of living in an oppressive state and trying to overthrow it, yes.

Quote:
I didn't mention guerrilla struggle in my question.

How else do you violently overthrow an oppressive state that you live in?

Quote:
So would the French Resistance be considered terrorists as they targeted civilians for reprisal?

Would the Jewish militia be considered terrorists for their actions during and post WW2 in Palestine, as they targeted civilians?

Give me specific acts and I'll answer. I would suggest that the 'violent acts' have to be more than shaving people's heads, or tarring and feathering, to qualify as terrorism.

EDIT:
What the hell I'll just give you my rough definition of terrorism:

Terrorism: "A form of irregular (guerrilla) warfare that targets civilians with the purpose of creating fear and thereby achieving a political goal."

It's not personal. It's just war.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:32 AM

wrong thread. oops

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
You stated that if civilians were targeted it was probably terrorism.

Within the outlines of your premise, of living in an oppressive state and trying to overthrow it, yes.

Quote:
I didn't mention guerrilla struggle in my question.

How else do you violently overthrow an oppressive state that you live in?

Quote:
So would the French Resistance be considered terrorists as they targeted civilians for reprisal?

Would the Jewish militia be considered terrorists for their actions during and post WW2 in Palestine, as they targeted civilians?

Give me specific acts and I'll answer. I would suggest that the 'violent acts' have to be more than shaving people's heads, or tarring and feathering, to qualify as terrorism.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Well the French resistance did more than shave people's heads, they murdered/executed civilians suspected of collaborating both during the war and at liberation. About 9000 without trial.

The Jewish militia blew up hotels, targeted civilians which resulted in casualties.

Tarring and feathering must at least count as torture, don't you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering

KPO

Saturday, October 11, 2014 7:11 AM

Quote:
Well the French resistance did more than shave people's heads, they murdered/executed civilians suspected of collaborating both during the war and at liberation. About 9000 without trial.

Well reprisals don't count as guerrilla warfare to me (see my terrorism definition above). And collaborators, I would say, count as military targets - killing them serves a military aim.

Quote:
The Jewish militia blew up hotels, targeted civilians which resulted in casualties.

Links?

Quote:
Tarring and feathering must at least count as torture, don't you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering

I don't know, I'm pretty sleepy. Why are we talking about tarring and feathering?

It's not personal. It's just war.