Unless its another rumour he's popped em

What I do appreciate about WW is that it is a place for authentic debate and, generally, people can live with the others viewpoint.

 

 

I am definately more understanding than hitherto.

Edited December 6, 201312 yr by boltondiver

not personally...but im sure some republican could give you a argument. ..

 

do you agree both him and mcguiness were convicted terrorists and have since become politicians....

 

do you see where im going?

 

Yes, I can see exactly where you're going and the point you're making.

 

I just think the reasons for their 'terrorism' were on different scales.

 

Mind, you, I've never been so clearly not qualified to comment.

 

My uncle (sadly died last year) left Bolton in the 70s though with barely a penny in his pocket and within no time was living like a king in Johannesburg.  I reckon he'd have thought Mandela was a cunt though.

Did you live in South Africa during apartheid?

I reckon we apply this to every subject. You weren't there so can't comment.

If violence justifies the means, was Hitler right to get shut of the nasty Jews from his doorstep?

 

What about Pol Pot or perhaps Genghis Khan?

 

Tony Blair even.

 

Or are we just being selective on who's a murderer and who isn't?

French Resistance = terrorists.

. To be fair to james he was gutted he beat me to the job but that's the way it was

 

If he was that gutted, could he not just have turned it down?

Do you honestly think the Irish were treated in a similar way to the way black South Africans were treated?

no, but that's not the point, they were treated badly because they were Catholic, hence their "justification" for their actions, actions that are condemned.

the uvf lot, to balance it out, could also see a threat from the IRA  and perceived all catholics to be behind them so that "justified" their terror actions, again condemned. ( justified in the above is to the ones carrying it out not to me)

the difference is, that 90% of the world probably agreed with mandellas cause ( rightly so) so his actions are largley excused as an unpleasant means to and end whereas the other conflicts tend to divide peoples opinions.

 

to say, one lot isnt justified because they wern't treated as bad as another group is ridiculous, no conflict works like that, you wouldnt expect the ANC at the time to say, "ah well, it's shit this, but in fairness, were not as bad off as those palestinians chaps, so we'll leave it be" they had their own grievances and acted to get rid of them, The ANC planted bombs to achieve their aim, maybe they had no other choice, but they still did it and this action is usually condemned as not the way to do things and as terrorism, but is justified by some as a means to an end.

planting a bomb killing innocent people in clubs bars and shops etc to achieve a political aim is either terrorism or it's not, cant pick and choose which is ok and which is not

If violence justifies the means, was Hitler right to get shut of the nasty Jews from his doorstep?

 

What about Pol Pot or perhaps Genghis Khan?

 

Tony Blair even.

 

Or are we just being selective on who's a murderer and who isn't?

 

 

Tony Blair is

I reckon we apply this to every subject. You weren't there so can't comment.

Actually it wasn't a loaded question.

 

I was asking to find out what it was actually like and wether it was as bad as reported from the perspective if somebody living there.

Murdering anyone is a crime whichever side of the fence you sit on so I dont think there should be an upsurge of sentimentality for Mandela, the black man/woman who was subjected to racism but protested peacefully and never killed any one is more a hero than Mandela, however you wont hear about him/her.

Edited December 6, 201312 yr by Mounts Kipper

Murdering anyone is a crime whichever side of the fence you sit on so I dont think there should be an upsurge of sentimentality for Mandela, the black man/woman who was subjected to racism but protested peacefully and never killed any one is more a hero than Mandela, however you wont hear about him/her.

 

Did he/she ever change anything though?

 

For the record, I'm not advocating terrorism in any way or form here.  It's a good debate is this.

Did he/she ever change anything though?

 

For the record, I'm not advocating terrorism in any way or form here.  It's a good debate is this.

 

 

Well, I think that Ghandi did quite well peacefully

Did he/she ever change anything though?

 

For the record, I'm not advocating terrorism in any way or form here. It's a good debate is this.

There was a little Indian chap who used to live in South Africa.

 

When he went back to India, he didn't start chucking bombs about & executing rivals. He did achieve something else peacefully though

Was he called Gandhi?

If we can bring Northern Ireland in as a reference, I claim WWII

 

The Nazis will claim they had a point about the jews. 

 

We could go on and on and on.

Well, I think that Ghandi did quite well peacefully

 

 

He did alright.

 

I don't know a great deal about the British rule of India, but did 'we' impose racial segregation there?

I take it no bugger could be arsed reading my link?

 

Describes how he ended up on the path to violence. Like I said, worth a read (if you can be arsed)

Edited December 6, 201312 yr by mickbrown

This is a healthy place. There won't be many forums where anything other than fawning praise of Mandela will be mentioned.

 

Did I hear correctly that a minutes silence at every English football match over the weekend will be observed? Maybe we can have ours for the thousands of lost Inkatha supporters to bring some balance?

I take it no bugger could be arsed reading my link?

 

Describes how he ended up on the path to violence.

 

 

Ghandi?

I take it no bugger could be arsed reading my link?

 

Describes how he ended up on the path to violence.

 

Guilty as charged.

 

Did I hear correctly that a minutes silence at every English football match over the weekend will be observed?

 

I do hope this isn't the case.

 

I don't think there should be one anyway for a foreign political - It has got fuck all to do with football in the Sky Bet Championship.

 

Also, as we can see, opinion is clearly divided and could just make a mockery of it.  Those who are opposed to the minutes silence will only ruin it for those who want to observe it.  Could well lead to trouble.

 

Politics has no place in football.

Edited December 6, 201312 yr by DazBob

Exactly spiders.

 

I don't get the comparisons.

 

I'm pretty sure a few on here are pandering to the views our outspoken prime minister in 1980's without actually looking at what good came out of his regime.

 

Like Daz bob says in no way am I backing what his regime did,just interested to know why it seems to be the worlds biggest secret.

 

I've grown up to believe Nelson Madnella was one of most courageous and gratious men on the planet and fought for peace for his people.

 

Now I'm getting told by folk on a forum that he's a murdering terrorist.

 

Maybe you need to let Reuters know.

I do hope this isn't the case.

 

I don't think there should be one anyway for a foreign political - It has got fuck all to do with football in the Sky Bet Championship.

 

Also, as we can see, opinion is clearly divided and could just make a mockery of it.  Those who are opposed to the minutes silence will only ruin it for those who want to observe it.  Could well lead to trouble.

 

Politics has no place in football.

 

 

Panic over Daz - it's applause, not silence.

 

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/25262646

 

Edited to remove the PL only. It's every fucker. Maybe detractors should just turn their backs?

Edited December 6, 201312 yr by bolty58

Guilty as charged.

 

Free your mind.................

May I lighten the debate a litte?:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxqQe_dBGQA

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCtUwcBtd4

Edited December 6, 201312 yr by Spider