LOL What was your message? That because Robert Mugabe is a cunt, that all blacks are inherently incapable of self-governance?
I guess all of the white cunts that have run nations in the past notwithstanding…
Thanks Rudyard Kipling.
Interesting. From where do you draw these observations ?
On, I don’t know, the basic facts of the conflict…
No, I meant legal executions carried out by non-dictatorial states for legislated crimes such as murder and treason, but thank you for your answer.
Now you’re qualifying. What about states where the whites had fundamental democratic rights and the blacks didn’t? And again, anyone can conduct mass executions and make claims regarding due process and rationale afterword. But then, those executed may have regarded themselves as soldiers and their “crimes” as legitimate acts of resistance and military activity…
The way you differentiate between a terrorist and a white criminal could be taken to infer that there were no whites involved in any of the terrorist attacks and/or there were no black criminals.
That’s your literal inference. The meaning was that under national security “states of emergency,” political crimes are considered far more serious and are given priority…
Not a dual judicial system, although someone who has just tortured and murdered the men of a kraal in front of their wives and children is definitely going to be treated differently to somebody that has stolen a vehicle. Do you think it should be otherwise ?
I don’t think car thieves are often treated like murderers in any case. Suffice to say, the men guilty of murdering and raping are War Criminals… Unfortunately, this leads to the fundamental question of how a nation can rationalize using military and counterinsurgency tactics, then claim the purview of “law and order/security” by trying their adversaries as “criminals” when they’re also conducting military ambushes, raids, and targeted assassinations, which would make the civilian and military leadership also murders by that definition.
Could you point out which parts of the following text you consider to be emotional and partisan please ?
Text begins:[i]Uncle Bob was never a guerilla/terrorist/freedom fighter leader.
That part right there. Firstly, I never said he was a “Guerrilla fighter,” but that he commanded a guerrilla organization. And then your subsequent dismissals of him.
He wasn’t a “leader?” Okay, we’ll just have to agree to disagree over that one. You may not like the sort of leader he was, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t. That’s your opinion…
If that position were to hold any water there would be no point in legal definitions.
If laws were only literally interpreted and universally enforced, then we’d have no workable society, since realities change and societies evolve making certain notions obsolete…
I actually said he “was never a guerrilla/terrorist/freedom fighter leader.” I’ll answer your questions individually but to do that we have to delve into one of your pet subjects, semantics, or to be more precise, definitions.
To be a commander one has to issue orders.
To be a leader one has to lead rather than just issuing the orders.
Terrorist is much more difficult to define, the old chestnut of ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.’ This is why I gave a choice of nouns earlier in the thread, viz, ‘guerrilla/terrorist/freedom fighter.’
So you have some innate knowledge of the inner workings of ZANLA circa 1977? You really know his specific role in all this?
Most people use the word ‘terrorist’ to mean someone who tries to terrify people or governments into giving in to his demands by the use (or threat) of violence. I imagine you are using it to mean anyone that uses fear to achieve his aims, perhaps either despot or tyrant might be a better name.
Most nations born of conflict have used terrorism including the US, Ireland, Israel, Indonesia, Algeria, and the list goes on. The Revolutionary Americans used “terrorism” as did their British and Tory adversaries. But George Washington himself was not really a terrorist. I doubt anyone could find clear instances of him ordering terrorist acts within his sphere of command, but the Patriots certainly used some dirty war tactics in the rural hinterlands. But the terror stopped at, or even before, the conclusion of the War…
Some achieve just and democratic societies, and some continue to become state terrorists.
5 Bde, while ostensibly an army unit, was never a part of the ZDF comd structure, it was in effect Mugabe’s personal Bde to be used, in his own words, to “deal with dissidents and any other trouble in the country”
Which would make him a “state terrorist” that used extra-judicial killings, torture, etc. to maintain power…
When he inherited ZANLA he became the figurehead, he had little to do with them as he was too involved in the international negotiations. Actual command of ZANLA fell to his subordinates.
Again, you were a part of the inner workings or something?
If you mean did his 5 Bde use fear and violence to subdue the Matebele and anyone who spoke out against his regime then yes, if you mean did he lead ZANLA into ops, then no.
I never said he led ZANLA into ops. But he had input on the devising of strategy and implementation of plans…
I think South Africans are eating, and reforms are gradual. The right to vote does not necessarily translate into flowers growing everywhere and the smell of incense permeating the air.[/quote]